Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Closures

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport on how many Railways Board proposals for the closing of lines, which have come to him from the Transport Users' Consultative Committees, he has now reached a decision.

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Minister of Transport how many closure proposals made to him by the Railways Board he has refused to allow to proceed in accordance with his recent statement.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Tom Fraser): I have refused my consent to four proposals (including one station proposal) on which Transport Users Consultative Committees have reported on hardship, and I have given my consent to four others. I have not so far asked the Board to defer publication of any proposals.

Mr. Digby: Will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to speed up these decisions? Does he know that this type of uncertainty is very inconvenient for members of the public and for the Railways Board, which has to plan ahead whatever the decision is in each case?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, I will speed up the decisions in these matters. We changed the procedure soon after the change of Government, and inevitably there was some initial delay, but I would like the procedure to be speeded.

Mr. Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman said that so far he has not asked

the Railways Board to defer any closures. Can he tell the House how he is to determine whether to ask the Board to defer such action?

Mr. Fraser: I thought that I had explained this at great length on earlier occasions.

Mr. Galbraith: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has. As far as I can see, he is to make up his mind without knowing whether any hardship is involved. He can discover whether hardship is involved only by taking it through the T.U.C.C.s., so that he will make up his mind without knowing all the facts.

Sir D. Renton: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Answer mean that he is allowing the procedure laid down by his predecessor to take its course and that in implementing the policy he will be doing so without significant change?

Mr. Fraser: No. I said on 4th November that, apart from these proposals, which I asked the Board to defer under the earlier procedure, the normal procedure would be gone through. I made this absolutely clear. From the announcement I made on my decisions, the House will already be aware that there is some difference between the test I apply and that applied by my predecessor.

Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall that, according to an Answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) recently, there are no fewer than 69 outstanding proposals before him which have been through the T.U.C.C.s and that at the present rate it will take him more than two years to deal with these? Will he try to expedite these matters?

Mr. Fraser: It will not take me more than two years to deal with them. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that it took a very long time after the T.U.C.C.s had reported to his right hon. Friend, my predecessor, before his right hon. Friend was able to reach a decision.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Two months.

Mr. Fraser: It took very much longer. It is desirable, and I think the wish of the House, that I give these matters


due consideration and have appropriate consultation, where need be, with the Railways Board.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport on what date he received the letter, dated 18th November, 1964, from the National Council on Inland Transport, asking him to vary the closure date of railways in and near the city and county of Aberdeen; and what reply he has sent to it.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): If my hon. and learned Friend is referring to the circular letter he forwarded to my right hon. Friend, it was received on 20th November. The letter asked him to make representations to my right hon. Friend about the adequacy of the alternative services on the Aberdeen to Inverurie line, and about the retention of the tracks. We have explained to the hon. Member that the track will be retained for through passenger services, and that if there is any concrete evidence of the inadequacy of the alternative services we should be glad to see it.

Mr. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend realise that the matter referred to in the Question is of very great importance to a wide area in which there is a great variety of industries, of which the city of Aberdeen is the centre? Will he pay close attention to the matter in order to prevent the unemployment which will ensue if communications are not adequate to the industries concerned?

Mr. Swingler: We appreciate the problems referred to by my hon. and learned Friend. I can only say that if he will supply us with concrete evidence about the inadequacy of the services which have been substituted for the railways we will certainly examine it, and if it involves varying the conditions that were attached, my right hon. Friend is prepared to do that.

Gloucester-Chalford Rail Car

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Minister of Transport what formal proposals he has received about the Gloucester-Chalford rail car; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Tom Fraser: None, Sir. But I have received suggestions from two local authorities for improved bus services. I have told them that on present evidence the existing services appear adequate, but that I am willing to consider practical proposals for improving connections between services.

Mr. Kershaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that the bus services are hopelessly inadequate for replacing this rail car? Will he understand the hardship being inflicted on members of my constituency and realise that the pronouncement he has just made makes the Labour Party's pledges during the election campaign in my constituency look extremely dishonest?

Mr. Fraser: I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 5th January to explain the position, and I let him have a copy of a letter which my Ministry sent to one of the urban district councils setting out all the circumstances of the case. It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to say that the existing bus services are hopelessly inadequate when he has failed to respond to my request of 5th January to give me evidence of that.

Mr. Kershaw: rose—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is so much noise that no one has been called. Mr. Powell, Question No. 3.

Mr. Tom Fraser: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer Questions Nos. 3, 4 and 36.

Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of that last reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: It is too late, I am afraid.

Liner Trains

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the progress being made in the provision of liner trains.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I understand that negotiations between the Railways Board and the National Union of Railwaymen


are still going on. In view of my assurance on 23rd December, that I would try to help if the parties so wished, I intend to take the opportunity of forthcoming general talks with the Union to discuss the liner trains problem.

Mr. Lloyd: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House some assurance that his Department appreciates that this is one of the key frontiers in the application of technology to transport; that in the use of this device lies possibly the most hopeful solution to the problem of the docks, and that the country must increasingly base political judgments on the actions of trade unions rather than on proclamations of Ministers?

Mr. Fraser: I am not going to use this occasion to make any attack on trade unions or on anybody else. I will just remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that I said on 23rd December how much importance I attached to the introduction of liner trains, and it is in the fulfilment of the promise which I then made that I am hoping to include this matter in the talks I am about to have with the National Union of Railwaymen.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman bring to the attention of the trade union leaders the fact, which those of us who have had experience of the bulk movement of coal by complete trainloads know reinforces the point mentioned by my hon. Friend, that this is in practice one of the most important ways of increasing the productivity of the railways?

Mr. Fraser: I think the right hon. Gentleman would wish to leave to me the way in which I put my case to the N.U.R

Railway Workshops (Contracts)

Mr. Ron Lewis: asked the Minister of Transport if he will remove the restrictions imposed by his predecessor which prevent British Railways workshops from competing for outside engineering contracts

Mr. Ted Fletcher: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to introduce the necessary legislation to enable British Railways workshops to manufacture for export

Mr. Tom Fraser: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) on 23rd December

Mr. Lewis: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the steps that he has already taken, may I remind him—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—may I ask him and remind him that we were very glad to use the railway workshops in wartime and should we not now make fuller use of them in peacetime to help the finances of the railways?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend appreciates, I have removed certain restrictions from the Railways Board workshops, and I am looking into all aspects of legislation affecting the manufacturing powers of the nationalised transport undertakings as a whole and not just how far any action that I might take would affect exporting manufacturers.

Mr. Fletcher: While appreciating what my right hon. Friend has said with regard to removing restrictions, may I ask whether he can tell us a little more about the potentialities of exporting from British Railways workshops, and whether it is his intention in the immediate future to amend the present legislation to allow British Railways workshops to participate in the export drive?

Mr. Fraser: As my hon. Friend appreciates, to give the railway workshops the power that he would like them to have would require legislation. There is no legislation on this matter before the House at the present time. We have a congested legislative programme, so I would not like to hold out the hope that there will be early legislation on the matter.

Mr. Galbraith: The Minister said that he would be considering this matter. In his consideration, will he remember that the job of the Railways Board is primarily transport and not manufacture? It seems to me that in transport we have a big enough job to do. Will he bear that in mind rather than add another activity which is well carried out by private industry?

Mr. Fraser: I also realise that it is very bad for nationalised industries to have imposed on them restrictions which are not imposed on private industries.

Passenger Platforms (Icy Conditions)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Transport if he will issue a general direction, in the public interest, to the British Railways Board to keep all passenger platforms free of ice during the present wintry weather.

Mr. Tom Fraser: No, Sir.

Mrs. Short: Has my right hon. Friend seen the cutting from the Wolverhampton Express and Star, which I have sent to the Front Bench, describing an accident sustained by one of his hon. Friends resulting from a fall on an icy platform, an accident which brought that hon. Member within a few inches of very serious injury? Does he not agree that this is a hazard to which country platforms are essentially susceptible? [Interruption.] I find it difficult to make my point to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Lady be heard describing the accident.

Mrs. Short: Does my right hon. Friend not think, therefore, that he should reconsider his Answer and request the British Railways Board to take steps to see that icy platforms are made free from ice by the application of sand, gravel or some such substance?

Mr. Fraser: I was sorry to learn that my hon. Friend was the victim of an accident on an icy platform. I hope very much that she is fully recovered. She asks me to give a general directive to the Board. I understand that the Board already has regulations dealing with this matter and that it is the responsibility of station masters to see that icy platforms are rendered as safe as they can be by the application of sand, gravel, ashes or other substances. I understand that, generally speaking, this is done. On the odd occasion when this has not been done adequately I think my hon. Friend would agree that that would not, by itself, justify my giving the Board a general direction.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Heavy Goods Vehicles (Load Limits and Testing)

Mr. Powell: asked the Minister of Transport (1) when he expects to make regulations prescribing load limits to be displayed on commercial vehicles;
(2) when he expects to complete his discussions on the establishment of an annual testing scheme for heavy road vehicles.

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport what further steps he proposes to take to deal with the danger to road users caused by defective heavy goods vehicles.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I have asked for the comments of interested organisations on comprehensive proposals for the annual testing of heavy goods vehicles and for the plating of all goods vehicles to indicate the maximum gross weight at which any individual vehicle may safely operate. I intend to press on with these proposals as quickly as possible.

Mr. Powell: While I am glad to learn that the right hon. Gentleman attaches great importance to improving the Construction and Use Regulations, may I, in regard to the question of annual testing, ask if he can deal with this separately and in advance of any general reissue of the Regulations? This is a matter which is generally recognised to be of great importance. It has been under consideration for at least six months and I hope that he can bring it to an early conclusion.

Mr. Fraser: I am pressing on with this matter. I am in touch with the interested organisations. It is right, I think, that I should take the views of the operators, the manufacturers and the unions before I reach conclusions on these matters. I think I should tell the right hon. Gentleman, however, that I am informed that the introduction of annual testing would require some amending legislation.

Sir C. Osborne: After the inquiry is made, could the right hon. Gentleman say how far it would be possible to have some of these very heavy loads taken off the roads and put on the rails?

Mr. Fraser: This is one of the matters, I am sure, to which a great deal of consideration will have to be given in the co-ordination study I have under review.

Mr. Popplewell: The Minister says he is pressing on with the question of testing as quickly as possible. Could he give the House some indication of when he hopes to make some decision about it? If it does require legislation, will he assure the


House that the legislation will come pretty soon after he has arrived at his decision, because there is urgent necessity for this? He will know from the spot checks and inspections which take place in various parts of the country how essential it is that heavy goods vehicles should be kept in a roadworthy state.

Mr. Fraser: My information is that the spot checks, which are continuing, have had a very good result. Work has already started to provide facilities for experimental testing of heavy goods vehicles in the Ministry's own depot at Hendon, but there are still many detailed problems to be solved and I cannot at present say when it will be possible to bring a comprehensive scheme into effect.

Rural Bus Operators

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Transport what further steps he will take to help rural bus operators in their present financial difficulties.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 16th November to my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan). Rural bus operators will share in the relief from the recent fuel tax increase announced in my reply of 25th November to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).

Mr. Mills: Does the Minister realise that this is a very real problem in the countryside? Costs have increased so much that many small bus operators are going out of business. What they want is some real help now. This is an urgent problem, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the matter again in order to see what he can do to help these bus operators.

Mr. Fraser: This is quite a serious matter. It was known to be a serious matter when the Jack Committee was set up, and that Committee reported upon the matter more than three years ago, in 1961. Since then, neither the previous Government nor this one have been able to find a solution, but my predecessor instituted local inquiries in England and Wales last year. These are going on and experiments are being tried, and I am hoping to have the results of those experiments in two or three months at the most,

so that I can see whether there is anything further that the Government can properly do to help to maintain an adequate public transport service in rural areas.

Mr. Powell: When does the Minister expect to take the steps necessary to implement his undertaking concerning the increased fuel duty? It is really unsatisfactory that this undertaking should remain on the record for week after week without the necessary legislative authority being given.

Mr. Fraser: I do not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman. We made our promise to the stage coach operators at once, the discussions were entered into at once, and those discussions are going on. I understand that the operators themselves are satisfied with the discussions as they are going on, and when they are brought to a conclusion it will be for the Government to bring forward the necessary measure to put this undertaking into effect. Quite clearly, the bus operators expect us to complete our discussions or negotiations with them before we take our next step.

Mr. Powell: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to do it at an early date.

Mr. Loughlin: When my right hon. Friend is considering this question, in considering the degree of assistance which can be given, will he ensure that some of this assistance will be used to reduce the cost per mile of transport to users in the rural areas? Is he aware that in many instances the cost per mile to the user is far in excess of that in industrial towns and cities?

Mr. Fraser: I am not sure that I can go all the way with my hon. Friend, because I have been answering a Question about the increased fuel duty from which the operators will be relieved. They cannot expect to receive this relief with a view to reducing fares because, after all, they are getting this relief to avoid having to put up their fares and to remain viable. If my hon. Friend is going back to earlier supplementary questions and to the Question on the Order Paper, I can tell him that our greatest concern is to ensure the continuation of a public transport service rather than that the fares of existing services should be reduced.

Mr. More: Will the Minister pay particular attention to the problem of rural bus operators as it affects the Clun Valley in my constituency, about which he will shortly be getting a letter from me? Will he also give special attention to the question whether he can influence local education authorities so that an intelligent and practical contribution can be made towards solving this problem by using school buses to help the local population?

Mr. Fraser: In some areas school buses are being used to help in this matter. That is another aspect of the experiments which are being conducted in certain parts of the country. This may be a way in which we can help out in some areas.

Circus Animals (Road Transport)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce new regulations to control the movement of circus animals by road.

Mr. Swingler: Under the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1963, it is an offence to use a vehicle for a purpose for which it is unsuitable or to carry a load which causes danger. Under the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, it is an offence to carry animals in such a manner as to cause them unnecessary suffering. We see therefore no need for new regulations.

Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that just prior to Christmas five elephants on their way to Glasgow via the M6 were packed into one vehicle? Does he not realise that five elephants in one vehicle is a scandal? It led to serious trouble among the animals and also created danger for other road users. Will he look into the situation more closely, if he can?

Mr. Swingler: I have seen a Press cutting giving details of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in animal welfare. I can only say that this is a matter for the Home Office and the police. Under the Protection of Animals Act the law is quite clear on the subject. This is a matter for police action.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In view of the hon. Gentleman's reply in which he said there was a need to remove suffering in this matter, may I ask how many Govern-

ment cars are on the road and what has been the increase since October 1964?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that it arises.

Diplomatic Immunities (Chauffeurs)

Commander Courtney: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the presence in this country of 20 foreign diplomatic chauffeurs who enjoy comprehensive immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts by special bilateral arrangements between Her Majesty's Government and the four countries of which they are nationals; and if he will introduce legislation to safeguard the interests of British subjects concerned in road accidents in which vehicles driven by these chauffeurs may be involved.

Mr. Swingler: Diplomatic missions are expected to insure the use of their vehicles against liabilities to third parties and insurance companies have undertaken not to rely on the privileged status of a diplomatic client in handling motor insurance claims. We are not aware of any case where this has not been done and we see no need for legislation.

Commander Courtney: Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary not appreciate that, with the best will in the world, accidents involving these chauffeurs are bound to take place sooner or later? As apparently he has been able to do nothing to help the British public, will he advise and press his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to take the very simple steps necessary to put the matter completely right?

Mr. Swingler: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any evidence of genuine complaint on this score, I wish he would let us have it, because as far as we know all have the practice of taking out insurance policies and the insurance companies are meeting any claims. Therefore, as far as we see the situation, there is no need for further action.

Diesel Fumes and Smoke

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport what further steps he proposes to take to deal with the nuisance and danger to health caused by the emission of diesel fumes and smoke from road vehicles.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the former Member for Leyton on 11th November.

Mr. Cooke: No doubt the Minister has this matter very much at heart. Will he do his best to take some new steps in this very difficult matter and possibly seek to make regulations to seal the fuel pumps of these vehicles to prevent the wrongful burning of diesel oil?

Mr. Fraser: We are working on a scheme to prevent overloading in the first place, which often results in excessive smoke being emitted. A British standard for diesel engines is being prepared which we hope will result in their being less prone to emit smoke. I am glad to see that my vehicle examiners report considerable activity on the part of operators to improve their vehicles.

Mr. Webster: Will the right hon. Gentleman make publicly known that it is the duty of the public, and that the machinery exists, to report such instances if they are seen? Will the right hon. Gentleman publish locally where such reports should be sent when these offences occur?

Mr. Fraser: I should like to consider that suggestion.

Mr. Woodburn: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that one of the most important defects occurs when a driver has been driving for far more than the permitted hours and is not in a fit condition to keep his eyes on the road and that this becomes dangerous to other drivers? Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the driver is in charge of a defective vehicle the danger is very much worse?

Mr. Fraser: I take my right hon. Friend's point, but I think he will agree that he has taken me a good deal beyond the question of the emission of diesel fuels.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Holiday Areas

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now give a higher priority to new roads and major road improvements in holiday areas, in view of the high earnings of foreign currency of the tourist industry.

Mr. Tom Fraser: A good deal that will be of value to these areas is already in the programme for the next few years. To do more could only be at the expense of important road schemes already in preparation. This would not be justified. For the subsequent programme, improvements in holiday areas will as hitherto be considered on their total merits.

Mr. Digby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that other countries which are trying to attract tourists make special provision and, indeed, build special roads? If we in this country are to take tourism seriously, we must provide the roads for the cars we attract.

Mr. Fraser: I am also aware that some countries depend more on tourism than we do for their economic well-being. The House will be aware that I am constantly being pressed to divert some part of the road programme to assist in stepping up exports. I am being pressed from many quarters to adjust the programme which I inherited. The hon. Member will be aware that I am not at this time able to give holiday resorts priority over exports.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is not going to delay the road programme, because it is now known that the M.4 project will be delayed another year for further consideration and, as that is a road which serves both commercial traffic and holiday traffic to the West, it would be disastrous if it were delayed? Can he give an assurance to the House?

Mr. Fraser: I am doing my best to avoid delay in the road programme all the time. I am constantly having my attention called to further considerations that I should examine on this and that plan and on this and that new line before going on with the job. What I have to do is to try to reconcile the criticism of those who say I ought not to get on with the job with that of those who say I am not getting on with the job quickly enough.

A.580 (Dual Carriageways)

Mr. Ogden: asked the Minister of Transport how much of the East Lancashire road A.580 will be dual carriageway when present contracts have been


completed; and what proposals he has for further improvements.

Mr. Swingler: All but one mile at Wardley Hall; and work on this will be starting later this year. Our immediate proposals include alterations to the main junctions and closure of some side roads. In the longer term dual three-lane carriageways will be provided with grade separation at some junctions.

Mr. Ogden: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he will now agree that the motorway link between Liverpool and the industrial regions of the North-West via the M.6 is now used almost to full capacity and that there is urgent need for a second motorway link between Liverpool and the M.6?

Mr. Swingler: Let us get on with this improvement first. We recognise the importance of this road and the need to get a better traffic flow, and that is why we are hastening forward the measures I have just mentioned.

Road Junctions and Roundabouts

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce a uniform system of priority for motor traffic at road junctions and roundabouts.

Mr. Swingler: Experiments are being carried out at a number of roundabouts to determine whether incoming traffic should give way to traffic in the roundabout. These experiments are not yet concluded. There is no need for a basic priority rule at junctions other than roundabouts since minor roads are now to be distinguished from major by carriageway markings.

Sir A. Meyer: When considering this question, will the hon. Gentleman take a look at Continental experience, where it emerges pretty clearly that a uniform system of priority relieves doubts and anxieties at these crossroads? If he has tried to drive round Hyde Park Corner, he will be aware of the danger caused by the indecision of motorists not knowing whether to give way to cars on the right or left.

Mr. Swingler: I appreciate that there is a good deal of evidence on this subject, but it is conflicting. This problem has been considered for many years, but un-

fortunately it has not been possible up to now to resolve it. We hope that the experiments now being carried out with "give way" signs will enable us to come to a firm conclusion shortly.

Mr. Paget: Has my hon. Friend considered the point that if we gave absolute priority to this milling traffic at Hyde Park Corner nobody would ever get in at all?

M.4 (Emergency Telephones)

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Minister of Transport if he will reconsider his decision not to install emergency telephones on the Langley-Maidenhead section of the M.4 motorway.

Mr. Swingler: It has always been the intention to install emergency telephones on the whole Chiswick-Maidenhead Thicket section of M.4, and they are already being put in. They will be ready for use when the whole length is opened to traffic in the spring.

Mr. Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman look again at this question of emergency telephones on sections of M roads before the whole road is opened? Is it not pedantic not to install these telephones and bring them into use on sections which are already in use but to wait for the whole of a long stretch to be in use before that is done? They are urgently necessary.

Mr. Swingler: Hitherto it has been the policy not to install this service on lengths of less than 20 miles, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that this policy is now under review and that we are considering the suggestion that he has made.

Street Lighting

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of raising street lighting on main traffic routes to a uniformly high standard.

Mr. Tom Fraser: Good lighting will be of some benefit on any main road. Whether a particular road should be lighted must depend on the funds available and on an assessment of the resulting benefit, especially the saving in accidents, and the comparable benefits which might be obtained from other forms of


improvement. It is, therefore, impossible to say in absolute terms how many miles of road should be lighted or what the cost would be.

Mr. Dance: Does the Minister agree that immediate expenditure on better road lighting would be more beneficial to road safety than the hundreds of thousands of pounds now being spent purely on propaganda?

Mr. Fraser: No; I do not accept that for a single moment.

Dame Irene Ward: You are wrong.

A.66 (Rokeby Bridge and Smallways)

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Transport when he hopes to start improvement on the A.66 between Rokeby Bridge and Smallways; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Swingler: We have no plans for the improvement of this length of road in the next few years.

Mr. Kitson: Will the hon. Gentleman say what he means by "the next few years"?

Mr. Swingler: We hope that conditions on this road, which we recognise to be unsatisfactory in a number of ways, will be relieved by the further pushing forward of the M.6. Obviously, it will have to be reviewed from time to time during the next few years, but the condition of this road is not such as calls for urgent action or inclusion in the road programme now.

Mr. Kitson: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there were 23 accidents on this short stretch of road in two years? Surely that calls for some action?

Mr. Swingler: I realise that there have been accidents. Although the accident record is serious, it is not above the national average. There are so many other cases which have a much higher priority that it is quite impossible to include the improvement of this road in the road programme at the present time. We recognise that something will have to be done after the immediate programme has been completed.

Roundabouts

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Minister of Transport what is his policy with regard to the building of roundabouts at busy intersections.

Mr. Swingler: Roundabouts are provided at busy intersections where the cost of a flyover or underpass is not justified by the volume of traffic. They are also incorporated in grade-separated junctions where turning movements are particularly heavy. Where grade separation is not immediately justified, but may be needed later, roundabouts are so designed that they can be converted without wasteful expenditure.

Mr. Gilmour: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that roundabouts at busy intersections are becoming increasingly old-fashioned and are dangerous and delaying? Will not he discourage them in favour of underpasses and flyovers?

Mr. Swingler: I do not accept all the implications or assertions in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. We recognise that underpasses and flyovers are much more desirable. The difficulty is that they are far more expensive—[HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"]—four or five to one in the majority of cases. At the moment, therefore, we cannot afford them. We hope that in future years we shall be able increasingly to have them.

The Earl of Dalkeith: Does the hon. Gentleman have any new proposals to indicate who has the right of way at a roundabout and so avoid confusion?

Mr. Swingler: That was answered on an earlier Question when I indicated that the new "Give Way" signs are being used experimentally to enable us to draw conclusions about the establishment of a rule for priority at roundabouts.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in America they stopped building roundabouts several years ago? Is he aware that a lot of people think that a great deal of money is being wasted on them at the present time?

Mr. Swingler: I am not at all sure that is the fact. I am informed that in


many other countries they have roundabouts for the same reason that we have them, because they are much cheaper. Roundabouts are still being constructed.

Three-lane Markings

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Minister of Transport, whether he will discourage the marking of roads in three lanes.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I have at present no evidence which would justify departing generally from three-lane marking on roads of the appropriate width. Where visibility is restricted, or there is a particular hazard, two-lane markings are substituted for three. We are also experimenting with offset double white lines to give alternate stretches of two lanes in one direction and one lane in the other.

Mr. Walker: Would the Minister agree that a very large proportion of fatal accidents occur on stretches of road where there are three-lane markings? Can he provide statistics about the number of fatal accidents on particular stretches of road?

Mr. Fraser: It is a fact that the detailed study made by the Road Research Laboratory showed that the accident rate was not higher on those roads, but nonetheless the number of fatalities was higher. That is perfectly understandable Notwithstanding that, we have so many miles of three-lane carriageways in this country that we could not possibly reduce them to two-lane carriageways and still carry the traffic. Nor could we, in the short term, convert all the three-lane carriageways into dual carriageways with double two-lane carriageways. I think that is a desirable aim, but it is something that we shall not achieve overnight.

Mr. Manuel: Does my right hon Friend recognise that there is great concern and a growing volume of opinion against the continuation and the renewing of three-lane carriageways? Is not my right hon. Friend himself convinced, as he drives a car a great deal himself, that one feels much safer on a two-lane carriageway rather than a three-lane one, despite the extra width?

Mr. Fraser: In the past I have frequently complained about certain three-

lane highways where I thought the accident rate was extremely high. In the next few years we shall convert a great many three-lane highways into dual carriageways with two lanes in each direction, but it would be wrong of me to hold out any hope that at a very early date we shall get rid of three-lane carriageways everywhere. The three-lane carriageways are normally wider than the two-lane ones and they carry very much more traffic. We could not justifiably limit the traffic to be carried on these roads.

Road Transport (Public Ownership)

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Minister of Transport what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the public ownership of road transport.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give an assurance that it is not his intention to take any further part of road transport into public ownership; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I have no proposals to put before the House at present. I have, however, informed the Chairman of the Transport Holding Company that, subject to my normal control over investment and borrowing, their road haulage and passenger subsidiaries may regard themselves as free to expand their fleets, where they consider this to be advantageous in the normal course of business, by the freely negotiated acquisition of other undertakings as well as by the development of their existing fleets.

Mr. Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the news that there is to be a general extension of the nationalised road haulage industry will be regretted throughout the country? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Is he also aware that his failure to state clearly what is the Government's policy on this issue is causing a great deal of uncertainty in this industry, and will he quickly pronounce his full views on this subject?

Mr. Fraser: I have no doubt at all that the hon. Gentleman thinks that private enterprise road haulage companies should be perfectly free to extend their enterprises as they will to meet the needs of their customers, but I cannot for the life of me see why the same freedom should


not be afforded to the nationalised companies.

Mr. Gilmour: Is the Minister aware that in the National Opinion poll taken last week people were asked to choose the most important things to be done for the good of the country and the number answering "More nationalisation" amounted to only 3 per cent.?

Mr. Powell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the threat to private road transport which is implicit in the policy and statements of the party opposite is doing grave damage by the uncertainty which it has caused, and that the Government are treating this industry exactly like the aircraft industry—causing uncertainty and doing nothing to remove it?

Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman talks absolute nonsense. My duty is to do what I can to ensure that the essential needs of this country in relation to transport are met adequately. I do not see how I can properly discharge that duty by allowing quite unnecessary restrictions to remain on nationalised transport.

Mr. Powell: Then will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear undertaking that he will do nothing whatever to limit the possibility of expansion and freedom of operation to private road transport?

Mr. Fraser: I have done nothing to limit private road transport.

M.1 (Lorries)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Transport what further consideration he has given to the banning of lorries from the fast track on the M.1; and whether he will bring in the necessary regulations.

Mr. Swingler: We are taking a fresh look at this problem in consultation with the police.

Mr. Shepherd: Will the Government consider this matter quickly, since many of us feel that this question has been delayed for far too long and that the sensible thing would be to restrict heavy lorries from the fast lane?

Mr. Swingler: We appreciate the problem, but one of the difficulties is that it does not affect only heavy lorries. Other slow-moving vehicles use the fast lane.

The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that last year a leaflet entitled Motorway Manners was issued by the Ministry of Transport giving guidance on the problem. The matter will be considered urgently by the Traffic Committee of the Chief Constables Conference, and when we have that Committee's advice we will consider it rapidly.

London-Crawley Motorway

Sir R. Thompson: asked the Minister of Transport by what date he expects to conclude his discussions with the local authorities as to the precise line of the London-Crawley motorway, within the approximate limits published on 15th December, 1964.

Mr. Swingler: This will depend on the issues which the local authorities wish to raise.

Sir R. Thompson: While thanking the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for that not very informative reply, may I ask him if he realises that the objectives of the Government in providing more houses and better development in the under-developed areas on the fringe of London are being frustrated until we get finality on this point? Does he not think it is about time that certain decisions were taken to enable catholic planned development to go ahead?

Mr. Swingler: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would wish us to assume dictatorial powers. I assume, therefore, that he considers that the local authorities have a right to be consulted in the matter. How rapidly they can give us their views and enter into consultation is a matter which depends on them. We are awaiting those consultations and we will give a decision as soon as we possibly can.

Mr. Powell: While appreciating that these consultations must be careful and detailed, can the Government not deal first with those questions the settlement of which would leave the local authorities free to undertake developments which are urgently required? Can they not establish an order of priorities in their consultations about these roads?

Mr. Swingler: We are establishing such an order of priority and that is why we must make really rapid progress on this question.

M.23 (Croydon Airport)

Sir R. Thompson: asked the Minister of Transport if, in his discussions with the local authorities on the possible route of M.23, he will make it a condition that the proposed route will pass to the west of Croydon Airport so as not further to delay the development already approved for that site.

Mr. Swingler: No, Sir. The route proposed does not, in fact, cross the Airport, but we cannot restrict the local authorities' freedom to express their views.

Sir R. Thompson: Does that Answer mean that the hon. Gentleman firmly intends that the line of this road will not cut through the airport, whatever the local authorities may say?

Mr. Swingler: That is the proposal which we have put forward. We are awaiting the comments of the local authorities and, of course, we must consult them. It would be quite wrong on my part to say that the proposal which we have put forward is bound to be adopted, whatever the local authorities say. We enter into genuine consultations with them. As I say, at the moment there is no proposal for crossing the airport.

A.4 (Accidents)

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Transport how many accidents occurred in each of the years 1962, 1963, and 1964 on the A.4 road between Maidenhead and the Wiltshire boundary, resulting in loss of life or serious injury.

Mr. Swingler: One hundred and thirty, 139 and 171, respectively.

Mr. Astor: Would the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agree that these figures indicate that this stretch of road is exceptionally dangerous, and do they not emphasise the urgency of completing the M.4? If he does agree that this is so, will he persuade his right hon. Friend to expedite his decision on this road rather than delay it, as it has been reported he is proposing to do in the local Press?

Mr. Swingler: I wish in a way that I could say that these figures indicate

that this road is exceptionally dangerous. In fact, for this type of road the accident figures are rather below the national average. As the hon. Gentleman may know, schemes for improving the road, costing £389,000, are already in hand or are to be put in hand in the near future. My right hon. Friend has today referred to the M.4 and we will be getting on with this as soon as possible. We hope to make an announcement in a month or so.

Mr. van Straubenzee: While being appreciative of the improvements to which the hon. Gentleman referred, many of which I know at first hand, is it, nevertheless, not clear that this is a very dangerous stretch of a very much over-burdened road, and does this not add weight to the representations made to him that there should be an urgent decision about the M.4?

Mr. Swingler: I agree that there have been serious black spots on this road. We have been trying to deal with them. We are not pretending that the situation is satisfactory and, of course, the long-term solution will be the construction of the M.4. As I said, we will be making an announcement about that very soon.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

North Sea Ferry (Aberdeen Terminal)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has for further financial assistance to Aberdeen Harbour Commissioners for building a ferry terminal for a North Sea ferry between Aberdeen and Scandinavia.

Mr. Swingler: I have nothing to add to the Answer given to my hon. and learned Friend on 11th November.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that this is very important to the north of Scotland and that parts of this island have the advantages of communications with the Continent which are denied to Aberdeen? Will he take steps to see—I am not asking for a Channel tunnel from Aberdeen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not? "]—that at least


there will be a ferry service, which would he good for the trade and commerce and industry of the North?

Mr. Swingler: My hon. and learned Friend can ask whatever he likes, but I understand that negotiations are going on between the Aberdeen Harbour Board and Scandinavian interests but that no firm plans have yet been made. When these negotiations are completed, it will be open to the Board to apply for a loan under the Harbours Act.

King's Lynn Port (Communications)

Mr. Derek Page: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the congestion at some of the major ports and the consequent delays to exports, if he will improve communications to the area of King's Lynn, where good port facilities are available for industrialists.

Mr. Swingler: I am not aware that communications to King's Lynn are a limitation on its use as a port. The Railways Board tells me that the railway could handle much more traffic. The roads to this area are being steadily improved to the extent compatible with the demands on the road programme of more heavily trafficked routes.

Mr. Page: Is my hon. Friend aware of the tremendous congestion along the A.17 into King's Lynn? Will he be prepared to have a traffic accident loss or similar assessment carried out to help him to arrive at a reasonable priority for the construction of the trunk road section of the King's Lynn by-pass?

Mr. Swingler: I would be prepared to look at that, but our present information is that these routes are not so heavily trafficked as those in many other areas to which we have to devote the present available funds. At the same time, there is evidence that more traffic could be transferred to the railways and be handled by them, and we would like that to be done, but I will have a look at the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Prior: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while at the moment the railways may not be getting all the traffic they could, his Department is busy helping to close down the railways and, therefore, we will depend more heavily on the roads to the East Coast ports? At least

six ports are involved. Should not the hon. Gentleman's Department pay more attention than it is doing to road improvements?

Mr. Swingler: We are not closing down the railways. They could handle more traffic, and I hope that attention will be drawn to this fact, because it would give some relief to the roads if the railways were more fully utilised.

Docks (Congestion)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take following his consultations with other Departments and with shipowners, port authorities and other port users about congestion in the docks.

Sir J. Eden: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to overcome the delays experienced by exporters at the London Docks.

Mr. Tom Fraser: Most ports are now free from congestion. The situation has improved at London and Liverpool, but still gives cause for concern. I am meeting the port authorities and port users next Monday to see whether anything more can be done in the short term to improve the situation.

Mr. Hall: While I am sure the House will be glad to know that there has been some improvement, especially in London, and while appreciating that there is a long-term problem, especially with regard to the London docks, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he appreciates that in the short term we must have better co-operation between management and men, and will he impress on everybody concerned that the present situation is not only increasing the cost of exports, but is severely demoralising many firms who are doing their best to export more goods but are finding that they cannot get their goods out of the country?

Mr. Fraser: Many improvements have been made as a result of the work undertaken by the committee of officials under the chairmanship of the Permanent Secretary of my Department. The position has greatly improved. I spent a day at the London docks recently to see for myself. As I said, I am not satisfied with things as they are, and I believe


that many more improvements have to be made, even in the short term. That is why I am going ahead with the meeting I have mentioned on Monday of next week.

Mr. Powell: As this is so important and there is so much public interest in this matter, will the Minister consider making a substantive statement as soon as possible on the results which his investigations have achieved hitherto and the conclusions at which he has arrived, even if the statement is of an interim nature?

Mr. Fraser: I or some of my right hon. Friends will keep the House informed. As the right hon. Gentleman realises, the debate that we had just before Christmas was largely on matters which were more properly within the province of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, as was the preceding supplementary question. As I said on that occasion—and I say again—I do not try to duck questions because they are more properly questions for my right hon. Friend. In reply to this question, I say that on some of these matters it may be more proper for someone else to make a statement, but we will see that the House is kept informed.

Dr. Bray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable and immediate scope for the diversion of traffic from London and Liverpool to other ports? The most modern docks in the country are in Middlesbrough, and there we have the only port in the country which works double shifts throughout the week and which worked at the weekend both over Christmas and the New Year, and yet these dock facilities are gross under-employed. Will my right hon. Friend consider taking up the conservatism of shippers and shipowners to make sure that traffic is diverted to where it can be expeditiously handled?

Mr. Fraser: Some diversion of ships has taken place, but this is one of the matters which I shall be discussing with the authorities concerned at the meeting next Monday.

Ports Council's Report (Bristol Channel Area)

Mr. Dean: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received

the report of the National Ports Council relating to the Bristol Channel area.

Mr. Tom Fraser: No, Sir. But I expect it shortly.

Mr. Dean: Can the Minister give an assurance that when he does receive this report it will be published so that all those concerned will have an early opportunity of studying it?

Mr. Fraser: The Council's report is a confidential report to the Government. I do not think anyone has ever suggested that it should be published, but when the Government's decision is made known information will be given about the Council's conclusions.

Mr. Webster: In the event of any jetty being built into the Bristol Channel, will the Minister ensure that adequate hydrographic tests are insisted upon in order to ensure the safety of navigation and also the régime of the south coast of the Bristol Channel?

Mr. Fraser: If any such scheme goes ahead there will be a further opportunity for the hon. Member and others to make their views known.

South Wales Docks (Charges)

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Transport (1) what study he has made of recent correspondence from the hon. Member for Barry regarding the consequences upon companies importing oil through Barry Docks of docks charges which are higher than elsewhere; and what applications for revision of limitations on port dues he has received from parties having a substantial interest in this matter;
(2) whether he is aware of complaints that oil companies have to pay higher docks charges at South Wales ports than are payable in docks in other parts of the United Kingdom; and if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Docks Board, requiring them to equalise charges at all their docks.

Mr. Tom Fraser: The level of these charges is a management matter in which I cannot intervene. I have written to the hon. Member explaining the position in more detail.

Mr. Gower: In view of the many cases in recent years of delay due to


congestion at particular ports, does not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary deem it rather absurd that shipping should be deterred from using the port of Barry—and, indeed, all the South Wales ports—by charges which are higher than at other ports belonging to the British Transport Docks Board?

Mr. Fraser: I have no reason at all to believe that traffic is diverted from Barry because of higher charges there. I understand that no complaint has been made by users to the British Transport Docks Board about the charges at Barry; and if no complaint has been made to the Board and since no complaint has ever come to me—indeed, I did not know about any of this until the hon. Gentleman's Questions appeared on the Order Paper—I think the hon. Gentleman is stretching himself overmuch in attempting to make out a case with which to attack the Docks Board.

MINISTRY OF AVIATION (CONCORD PROJECT)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. MAWRY: To ask the Minister of Aviation whether he will now make a statement on the future of the Concord project.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Roy Jenkins): We have now completed the review of the Concord project which we set in hand in October and we have exchanged views with the French Government.
We had, and we still retain, some doubts about the financial and economic aspects of the project. We have, however, been much impressed by the confidence of our French partners and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has informed the French Prime Minister that we stand by the treaty obligations into which the last Government decided to enter.
During the coming months we shall be discussing with our partners the detailed programme of development and production.
Now that the uncertainty over the future of this project has been removed I am sure that all those concerned with it on both sides of the Channel will press

forward with a real sense of purpose. In this, they will have the full backing of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Mawby: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for this very belated statement, may I ask whether he is aware that my only knowledge that this Question was to be answered at this particular time was from reading about it in the newspapers? Have we not just had about enough of government by Press conference?
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the statement which he has made, because I think that all of us know that the state of doubt into which the whole question has been put has had very wide repercussions right outside the whole of the Concord project. Is he aware that, as I have constituency interests in these wider aspects, I am certainly very pleased that he has now decided to continue with this project?
Will he bear in mind that in the future it would be better if the views were exchanged before public statements were made and then we might be able to make more progress?

Mr. Jenkins: I have often heard hon. Members complain that their Questions were not answered on the day for which they were put down, but not frequently complain that they were answered. There is no question of this announcement being belated. The message was delivered to the French Prime Minister yesterday morning.

Mr. Maude: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is customary to inform an hon. Member that one of his Questions is to be answered if it is so far down the list as No. 78? Is he further aware that it is not a very satisfactory procedure to make an important statement with international implications in such a way that the Opposition are not given an opportunity to see the statement in advance of its being made?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while there will be widespread satisfaction that the Government have decided to go ahead with this project, there will be some sorrow that he has chosen a somewhat ungracious form of words in which to make this announcement? Could the right hon. Gentleman, however, confirm that the statement he has made means that there is no change in the progress of the programme from the form in which


it was left by the last Government and that there is no change in the programme as it was originally planned? In that case, does he really feel that any great service has been performed to this country or the aircraft industry by what has happened since October?

Mr. Jenkins: I think that the procedure which has been followed in relation to the answering of this Question has been in all respects the normal one. As for the questions of substance which the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) has asked me, as I have said, we propose to discuss with the French Government exactly how we proceed with the project and they are very willing to do this with us.
I do not imagine for a moment that the hon. Member, at any rate, wishes to suggest that we should spend at least £140 million of British taxpayers' money on this project without considering very seriously whether we proceed in the most economic and reasonable way. We have, however, no intention of getting the worst of both worlds and spending the money and losing the market, but exactly how we go ahead depends to some extent on the rate at which the Americans are proceeding behind us and on the exchange of views with our French partners, which we are now proceeding to hold.
I do not apologise in the least for the fact that we undertook this review. In view of the vastly increased cost and hazardous nature of this project, I think that we were fully entitled—indeed it was our duty—to review it.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side of the House congratulate him and his right hon. colleagues on the successful conclusion of his negotiations? Is he aware that we consider that he displayed wisdom by undertaking this necessary review before coming to a decision? Is he also aware that those on the Opposition side who have already spoken and those who would like to speak are having great difficulty in concealing their disappointment at this announcement?

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nobody blames the Government for reviewing a project of this magnitude, but that what we

do blame them for is the hamfisted way in which the First Secretary went about it by publishing the White Paper? Nevertheless, may the right hon. Gentleman be assured that the news he has given will be well received in the aircraft industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, during the discussions to prolong the production programme, as has been suggested through the Press, which is our only source of information these days, that this may well add to the ultimate cost?

Mr. Jenkins: I am glad to know from the hon. Gentleman that nobody, in his view, blames the Government for this review. I think that it has been very reasonable indeed to carry out the review, and that, as it was being carried out, it was better that we announced publicly that we were doing so rather than carry it out in a hole and corner way.

Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that both he and other Ministers on the Front Bench who, I trust, will continue to scrutinise most carefully the loosely and casually contrived agreements which we have inherited, will have our full support?

Sir J. Eden: Although the decision which has been announced by the right hon. Gentleman is welcomed, is not the arrogance and complacency with which he announced it typical of the whole attitude of the Government throughout their examination of this project? Has the right hon. Gentleman made any assessment of the damage that this has done to Anglo-French relations and future co-operation with the French on other aircraft projects, and can he say, also, what assessment he has made of the ultimate cost of the Concord project as regards the possible cancellation of the TSR2?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not believe that this has done damage to Anglo-French co-operation, and I think it extremely foolish to take the view that one cannot enter into international collaborative projects without either or both partners having a sensible look at a project as costs increase and as circumstances develop. I do not believe that even the hon. Gentleman would wish to suggest otherwise.
I am not able to anticipate any decision about the TSR2, but it would be extremely foolish, and in the worst interests of the aircraft industry, to take the view that or e project cannot go ahead without the other.

Mr. Rankin: Do I understand from what my right hon. Friend has said that he has decided to go ahead with the production of the prototype and that, at that point, there will be a pause for some further thought? If that be so, can he tell us how he will manage to keep together the experienced teams of different types which will be needed for the production of the Concord itself?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that the problem which my hon. Friend has in mind will arise. But we should like to know as much as we can about the performance of the prototypes before entering into a very heavy production commitment, compatible with the fact, as I said earlier, that we are determined not to spend the money and then not catch the market. Therefore, to some extent, it depends on our competitive position vis-à-vis the Americans, but there is no danger of our allowing any teams to be dispersed before we go ahead.

Mr. Marten: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman said that he had some doubts and reservations about this project. To clear the air and get matters straight, will he say what those doubts and reservations are?

Mr. Jenkins: I expressed those doubts and reservations on the economic and financial aspects of the project to the House of Commons for about 30 minutes on 5th November last. I do not propose to repeat them now, but I do not propose to withdraw them, either.

Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman has not really answered the most important of the questions which I asked, namely, has the decision which he has announced made any difference to the position as it was left by the last Govern-

ment? In other words, has there been any modification of the plan for development of the Concord at all? Secondly, with reference to what he said about discussing this project regularly and closely with the French from now on, could he tell us what he has been discussing with the French since last October?

Mr. Jenkins: I said in my original Answer, and I repeat to the hon. Gentleman now, that we shall discuss the detailed programme of development and production with the French in the coming months.

Mr. Maude: Has not this sort of discussion been going on all the time?

Mr. Jenkins: The previous Government discussed it with the French and they also produced an escalation of costs to more than 200 per cent. of the original estimate, which is what we greatly hope to avoid in the future. What we propose to discuss is how we can go ahead in the most economical and the most effective way. It is extremely foolish of right hon. and hon. Members opposite to take the view that there is nothing which needs discussing and nothing which needs watching extremely closely.

Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the first part of my question.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this matter on supplementary questions.

BILL PRESENTED

LAW COMMISSIONS

Bill to provide for the constitution of Commissions for the reform of the law, presented by Sir Eric Fletcher; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Ross, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Niall Mac-Dermot; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

3.45 p.m.

The Minster without Portfolio (Sir Eric Fletcher): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As the House is aware, it is the policy and intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce during this Parliament, under the inspiration of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, substantial measures of law reform. The foundation of this programme of law reform is contained in the Bill to establish a Law Commission for England and Wales and one for Scotland, which I have just introduced.
I hope that in many cases, perhaps in most, these Measures will not be controversial in the sense of providing conflict between the political parties in the House. I imagine that this will certainly be the case as regards the Bill now before us, if only for the reason that its provisions had very largely been prepared by the previous Administration, to whom a large part of the credit for the Bill quite properly belongs.
Those hon. Members who have had an opportunity to look at the 35 Clauses and 19 pages of Schedules may well be excused for thinking that the Bill deals with highly technical and somewhat forbidding matters. The truth is that the main object of the Bill contained in Part I and the first 18 Clauses is to deal with a very human problem, seeking to rectify the hardships which have been experienced for many years past by large numbers of persons who are entitled to what are normally called funds in court, that is to say, sums of money which have been awarded to litigants, but which are administered by the courts. If it were not for the fact that Part II of the Bill introduces a series of amendments to the existing law, the Bill might more appropriately have been entitled the Funds in Court Bill. It will, perhaps, be convenient if, first, I try to explain to the House the main object of Part I.
For some hundreds of years, it has been the practice of the courts to con-

trol and administer money belonging to infants and mental patients. This jurisdiction has derived from the position of the Sovereign as parens patriae and is of great antiquity. In 1925, this function of the courts was extended to deal with sums of money which became payable to widows of deceased persons as a result of claims arising under the Fatal Accidents Acts. The total amount of the funds at present under the control of the courts and administered under the Rules of Court for the benefit of widows and infants is about £20 million. In addition, over £28 million is administered on behalf of mental patients.
The principles which have hitherto governed the policy of investment have been conservative in the extreme and were designed to secure the maximum of security regardless of the erosion of capital due to inflation.
Whereas the vast majority of claims under the Fatal Accidents Acts are brought in the High Court, the funds recovered may be administered either in the High Court or, if the High Court so orders, in the plaintiff's local county court. Funds administered under the county court system were originally placed on deposit earning interest at the rate of 2½ per cent. per annum.
In recent years investment with the National Debt Commissioners has been the normal rule and the interest, which has been fixed from time to time, now stands at a rate of 4¾ per cent. The capital of any individual suitor's funds is guaranteed £ for £ irrespective of any fluctuations in the value of the securities held by the commissioners.
Under the High Court system, investments were limited to gilt-edged securities and the main part were invested in War Loans or other undated stock. Under both systems there have been the most unfortunate results for the beneficiaries. They have been denied any chance of capital appreciation which would have been open to investors in equities and as a result of inflation they have suffered a serious capital depreciation. The continued decline in gilt-edged values since the war, together with the fall in the value of money, has resulted in funds invested in this way losing a very considerable part of their value.
The losses in cash value have been bad enough; in actual value they have, for


some suitors, been catastrophic. Take, for example, the case of a boy of 10 who, in 1947, was awarded a sum of £1,000. If that had been invested in ordinary shares, by the time he was 21 it would have brought in a considerable capital appreciation. If invested in gilt-edged stocks, as it had to be, it dwindled to a nominal value of £720 when he became 21 in 1958. OF course, £720 in 1958 was worth very much less than the same amount in 1947. There was the further difficulty that once an investment has been made by the court it is in practice very difficult and cumbersome to get the investment changed, even if, which is unlikely, the widow or infant concerned knows that, theoretically, this is possible.
It was to meet this situation that, in 1958, Lord Kilmuir, then Lord Chancellor, appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Pearson, now Lord Justice Pearson, to examine the investment of funds in court. I am sure that the House would wish me to take this opportunity of expressing its gratitude to Lord Justice Pearson and his colleagues for their Report, which was presented in 1959. It is now, after an interval of five years, that I am happy to introduce this Bill which, with some slight modifications in form, implements the substance of the Committee's recommendations.
More often than not reforms in the administration of justice result from public agitation focused by a particularly glaring instance of injustice. It is to the credit of the Lord Chancellor's Department that in this case the initiative came without any public outcry, justified though it would have been. I think that I am entitled to observe that this is but one illustration of the many anomalies and imperfections in our legal system which, I hope, will be corrected when we have set up as a permanent body a Law Commission for England and Wales and one for Scotland, for the purpose of keeping the laws under constant review. That is the purpose of the Bill which I presented this afternoon.
The Pearson Committee accepted the principle that the court, in investing and looking after suitors' funds, should act in the same way as a prudent trustee with access to competent advice. They recommended the setting up of a Central Corporation to which money could be transferred from both the Supreme Court

and the county courts for investment, very much on the lines of an ordinary unit trust, in equities, gilt-edged and any other securities. The Pearson Committee appreciated—as will the House—that some suitors, for example, young children, would be more concerned with capital growth than with income, whereas others whose money would normally be withdrawn in a fairly short time would be more concerned to receive a high rate of income consistent with preserving the capital intact.
If the provisions of the Bill are accepted by the House, the future position as set out in Clause 6 will be this: funds administered in the county court will be capable of investment in either of two ways. The first, as at present, will be with the National Debt Commissioners—with the added advantage that the Commissioners will in future be able to pay approximately the market rate on their investments. This form of investment is described in the Bill as "placing to a short-term investment account". Alternatively, the funds may be invested with the Public Trustee in what the Bill calls a Common Investment Fund, which I will explain later. Each corresponds roughly to a unit trust. This is described as "placing to a long-term investment account". It will be possible in future to administer funds in the High Court in any way of three ways: first, as in the case of county court funds, with the National Debt Commissioners; secondly, again like county court funds, in a common investment fund; or, thirdly, in selected investments within a range to be settled by the Rules Committee.
The House should know that it will also be possible under the Bill, for the first time, to invest the money of mental patients under the control of the Court of Protection in one of the new Common Investment Funds authorised by the Bill. The House will, therefore, see that the central feature of the Bill is the provision, in Clause 1, empowering the Lord Chancellor to make schemes establishing common investment funds. There will presumably be at least two and possibly more to meet the varying needs of widows and infants, as they may be differently situated.
The Pearson Committee recommended that the Central Corporation to manage


these common investment funds should be independent of Government control and should have experienced staff of the right calibre. They deliberately refrained from making any specific suggestions. The Government feel that the Public Trustee possesses the ideal qualifications contemplated by the Pearson Committee. He is already responsible for investing very large sums belonging to members of the public. He has an expert staff and has advice on investment policy from a very distinguished advisory committee.
Moreover, the Public Trustee has assured the Government that he can absorb this additional responsibility without any appreciable increase in staff and without requiring any new accommodation. The result of making him responsible for the long-term funds will be to save both the suitors' money and the taxpayers' money and will ensure that widows and infants will in future have their funds under the most capable management.
The Public Trustee will be free to invest in any form of property without restriction, and the funds coming into his hands under the Bill will be held by him for one single client, the Accountant General. It will be the duty of the Accountant General to pool the funds he receives from the courts for investment with the Public Trustee and to allocate to each suitor the proper units which represent that suitor's share in the funds. Every widow and infant whose money is invested with the Public Trustee will, therefore, become beneficially entitled to a certain number of units held for them by the Accountant General in the Common Investment Fund controlled and managed by the Public Trustee.
The House will appreciate that, if full advantage is to be taken of this new system, it will be necessary to switch a considerable portion of the funds now invested by the courts on behalf of suitors. Obviously, it is for the court to decide whether any particular fund should be reinvested with the Public Trustee under the new system. That decision must depend on the particular circumstances of the beneficiary.
At the same time, I think that the House will agree that it is essential in the interests of beneficiaries generally

that their existing investments should be reviewed. I have, therefore, asked my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to draw the attention of the masters and registrars, at the appropriate moment, to the advantages of the new system and to the desirability of reviewing funds under their control so that, where they think it suitable, they can indicate to the beneficiaries the advantages for their investments to be switched. At the same time, I have asked my noble Friend to invite the Law Society to urge upon solicitors generally the desirability of their also reviewing their clients' funds in court for this purpose.
Having thus explained the purpose of the Bill, I hope that the House will not think it necessary for me to explain the detailed machinery by which the Bill achieves these objects. Clause 2 makes the necessary amendments to the Act of 1906 which set up the office of the Public Trustee. The substantive changes in the systems of investment introduced by the Bill would, in any event, involve consequential amendments to Part VI of the Judicature Act, 1925, and to those provisions of the County Courts Act, 1959, which govern funds in the county courts. Much of Part VI of the Judicature Act, 1925, is now obsolete. As the House knows, it was, in any event, a consolidation Act. Its language is often inconsistent with the more modern language of the County Courts Act, though intended to have the same meaning.
Moreover, the Bill provides for a number of matters which will be common to both the Supreme Court and the county courts, but for which separate provision is made in the two existing Acts. Part I of the Bill accordingly supersedes nearly all Part VI of the Judicature Act and re-enacts in modern language those provisions which are still required, modified, of course, to allow for the new system of investment. It also makes the necessary modifications to the County Courts Act and provides for those matters, such as accounts and the ultimate liability of the Consolidated Fund, which are common to both.
I turn to Clause 19, which is the first Clause in Part II but which might equally well have been the last Clause in Part I. This is the Clause which will probably give the House the most


concern. It raises in an acute form a question on which there are quite legitimate differences of opinion transcending party politics. These were expressed both in the Pearson Committee's Report and in another place. The question in its simple form is this: if a widow recovers damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts, should the court have a discretionary power to retain control of the money and invest it for her benefit or should the widow be entirely free to do as she likes with it? A subsidiary question is whether any distinction should be drawn between the case in which the widow has dependent children and the case in which she has none.
Under the present law there is a discretionary power of control except in the very rare case of proceedings being brought in the county court. Should the existing situation continue? On the one hand, it is argued by those who stress the importance of sex equality that a widow should be given the same freedom to manage her own affairs as a man or as a married woman or as a spinster, or, indeed, as a widow who, for example, obtains damages as a result of an action for injuries done to herself.
Those who support the alternative view stress the fact, as experience has shown, that when a widow obtains a sum of damages in court she is often exposed to the temptation to use her money ill-advisedly, to the detriment of her own interests and the interests of her children.
The House should, I think, appreciate chat the current practice of the courts, where there are dependent children, is to award the bulk of the damages, which may, of course, be £5,000 or £10,000, to the widow and to award only comparatively small sums, of perhaps a few hundred pounds, to the children. This policy, I imagine, has grown up in the knowledge that the widow's damages are often invested and presumably are available for the family as a whole.
If it were decided to remove the court's power of control, it might well be that the court would be more inclined to award less to the widow and more to the children, doing so in the knowledge that the funds of infants must be controlled by the court until their majority. The House should also know that the practice of the courts, where a lump sum is in-

vested for the widow, enables her from time to time to draw on the capital for special expenses such as school fees, the purchase of a house or a business or a motor car, or perhaps expenses for the widow's remarriage, or even a special holiday.
The Pearson Committee drew attention to the fact that there is some doubt whether the jurisdiction at present exercised to control widows' damages has ever been validly authorised by Parliament. It is, therefore, clearly necessary that on this occasion Parliament should reach a clear decision about this human problem. The arguments on both sides are fully set out in the Pearson Report, and I need not repeat them here.
The Pearson Committee recommended that statutory sanction should be given to the existing practice for discretionary control and strongly urged that even if their recommendation were not accepted by Parliament, control should be exercisable wherever the widow has any child or children under the age of 21. This is the compromise which is contained in the Bill and which I invite the House to approve. It will be appreciated that the power of the court is a discretionary one. There would be nothing to prevent the court in a suitable case, or indeed in any case, from paying out all or part of the damages to the widow and merely retaining control over the balance.
May I deal briefly with the remaining Clauses, about which I hope a very short word of explanation will suffice. At present, the county court jurisdiction to make an administration order—a simpler form of bankruptcy—is limited to a case in which the debts do not exceed £50. It is proposed to extend this jurisdiction to cases in which the indebtedness does not exceed £250. This is done by Clauses 20 and 21. Clause 22 amends the law relating to execution in the county court against the goods of a defendant.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Before the Minister leaves Clauses 20 and 21, would he explain why it is necessary to limit this to £250 instead of the normal county court limit of £400?

Sir E. Fletcher: It was thought that in present circumstances £250 was the appropriate limit for an administration order, because an administration order


is in itself a simplified form of bankruptcy and only available, and intended only to be available, in a somewhat restricted field. It was thought that to extend the jurisdiction for an administration order beyond the position in which the debt exceeded £250, compared with the present limit of £50, could not be justified at present.
Clause 23 is a highly technical Clause to the extent that it gives the county court some additional power to grant relief to a lessee in an action brought for forfeiture for non-payment of rent. It does so by extending the time within which the arrears can be paid off.
Clause 24 is a very desirable improvement. It will enable a chancery or district registrar to be appointed a chancery master, and a district or county court registrar to be appointed a taxing master. Some inconvenience has been found in the past by the absence of those qualifications.
I hope that the House will not think it necessary for me to comment on the remaining Clauses, any or all of which can be discussed in greater detail, if required, during the Committee stage.
However, perhaps I should say a word about Clause 33. As my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has on more than one occasion observed, the Statute Book is at present cluttered up with a large number of enactments which, to quote the words of Clause 33, have become obsolete, spent or unnecessary or been superseded by other enactments. This deplorable state of the Statute Book of England produces intolerable inconvenience to say the least, particularly to practitioners and often to the public. From time to time, as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite is aware, statute law revision Acts are passed to deal with this accumulation of defunct legislation, but it is a piecemeal and slow process. We very much hope that the process will be vastly accelerated when the proposed Law Commissions are set up.
In the meantime, advantage has been taken of the introduction of the Bill to propose the repeal by the operation of Clause 33 and the Second Schedule of no fewer than 49 enactments relating to the administration of justice which have become obsolete, spent or unnecessary

or have been superseded. They include the Execution Act, 1664; the Disorderly Houses Act, 1818; the Petty Bag Act, 1849; and the Sale of Spirits Act, 1862. I hope that no one will expect me to explain the significance which any of these obsolete Acts once had, but it may interest the House to know that the two Acts of George III which are being repealed provided for the erection of offices for the then Accountant General and for the six clerks, one of whom was Nell Gwyn.
By the time we reach the Committee stage I very much hope to be in a position to recommend a number of further additions to the Second Schedule.

4.14 p.m.

Sir John Hobson: The House is grateful for the exposition which the Minister has given of the Bill, though I think that he must have got a little confused in his history if he thought that an Act of the reign of George III had anything to do with Nell Gwyn. Be that as it may, my hon. Friends and I welcome the Bill and do not have any desire to impede it. On the whole, it is a good Bill, particularly as it was almost wholly prepared by the previous Government and by my noble Friend the previous Lord Chancellor, and as its origins are to be traced back to the foresight of a former Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, and to the work of the Pearson Committee.
We have heard a good deal about a Bill which has been introduced today, but we have not seen and do not know its contents, and, therefore, it is very difficult to comment on it. So I shall endeavour to confine myself to the Bill that we are actually discussing and not embark on general topics of law reform. except just to remind the House that we heard in a speech made to the Association of Labour Lawyers in May last year about how the party now forming the Government would spend its first three months before its major Measures had been prepared in bringing in items of law reform, and that the only two items of law reform brought in are this Bill and an amendment to the Legal Aid Regulations, both of which were wholly prepared and ready for the Government when they took office.
I am sure that the House generally would wish to express its thanks—I personally also wish to do so—to Lord Chief Justice Pearson and all the members of his distinguished Committee for the very extensive investigation which they undertook into this difficult and complicated subject and for the excellent Report that they made on the whole question, which affects very numerous litigants and very large numbers of persons. It is a matter which affects deeply the pockets of very many citizens who may find themselves in a position in which they are being looked after by the courts.
I welcome very warmly the fact that the suggestion by the Pearson Committee that there should be something in the nature of a unit trust has now been implemented and that Clause 1 provides for the setting up of a long-term investment account or, in other words, a Common Investment Fund, which is to be under the control of the Public Trustee. I am sure that this will be very beneficial. The Pearson Committee suggested, however, that there should be only two Common Investment Funds, one intended for short-term investment and one intended for long-term investment, which it called the A Fund and the B Fund.
The Bill as drawn and the speech of the hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate that, while short-term investments were to be dealt with by deposits with the National Debt Commissioners, it was still intended to set up more than one investment fund. I am a little mystified why this should be if they are all to be long-term investment funds, because the option which is given by Clause 6 to invest in a common investment fund is only given by Clause 6(1,a,ii), which appears to be on the basis of a long-term investment account.
Therefore, the varying needs of widows and infants, which was the reason given by the hon. Gentleman for setting up more than one investment fund, would not seem to vary if the short-term investments are to go to the National Debt Commissioners and the others to a long-term investment fund. If it is long-term investment, why cannot they all be in a single fund? I should have thought lat there were great advan-

tages in having a single fund if it is intended only to provide for the needs of those who require long-term investment.
I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the explanation which he gave about what is likely to happen in the event of transfer. As I understand it, every single fund will have to be reconsidered by the court or the official of the court under whose direction it is at present to see whether or not it should be reinvested as a result of the new arrangements brought in by the Bill. But will these officials have expert advice? It is an investment problem, and, though one greatly admires the attention to detail of masters, registrars and judges, not all of them are very expert upon investments.
Also, there is not only the question of the advantage that can be gained by reinvesting under the new arrangements; there is also the loss that will have to be taken on the funds as they stand at present, and there will be the problem of the individual beneficiary on whose behalf the funds are invested, who presumably will also have to be told what the present value of the fund is, what loss he will take if it is switched, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of switching. It is a very technical investment operation, and I wonder to what extent proper advice will be given to the court officials and the beneficaries on all this difficult and complicated question.
Next, what about Scotland? Is Scotland not to have the benefit of funds in court being invested on the basis of unit trusts? As I understand, the Lord Chancellor succeeded, at any rate in this respect, to the duties of the former Lord Chancellor of Scotland, though I think that some of his duties have been taken over by the Lord Advocate. Be that as it may, should not a scheme of this nature be provided for the whole of the United Kingdom? Is anything being done about the provision of such a fund for the advantage of Scottish litigants?
I am glad to note that Clause 15 lays a statutory obligation for the publication of the accounts of any common investment scheme so that, of course, the courts, Parliament, the Lord Chancellor's Office and the public will, in


general, be able to see what is happening in relation to each common investment scheme. There is, however, an additional point which remains wholly undisclosed and which never seems to be given away. It is the question of on whose advice investments are made.
We are told that there is a very distinguished body of persons who advise, and who will continue to advise, the Public Trustee and I have no doubt that they are most admirable people who give most excellent advice. But surely their identities should be made public annually in exactly the same way as, when one invests in a public company, one knows who the directors are and those on whom the company relies for investment advice. It may be only a small point, but it is something which should be met.
There is something else to which consideration should be given. Should we not put into the Statute what information is to be given to the beneficial owner of each and every one of these funds? The ordinary unit trust gives a six-monthly account showing the amount of dividend, the number of shares one holds, the amount of investment that is to come, the amount of tax deducted and the net income.
Should we not place upon either the court or the Public Trustee or the Accountant General an obligation to inform each beneficiary who has shares in any of these common investment funds, first of all, the number of shares which they hold on his behalf; secondly, the value of these shares at each half year according to valuation at that date; thirdly, the amount of income credited to his account, together with notification of the deduction of tax, if any; and, finally, the state of account of the fund, so that every six months he can see both the capital and income position up to date?
There is yet another small point which might be considered. As I understand, the income from an investment in a long-term investment fund can only, in accordance with Clause 7(1,h), be reinvested in deposit accounts or short-term investment accounts. It would surely be worth applying to such cases the ordinary provisions of unit trusts whereby one can allow income to accumulate in the long-term-fund.

This would be advantageous to the beneficiary who does not want to spend the income. He would need to look at only one fund in which he was allowing his money to build up as a single investment. He would not need to look at both long-term and short-term funds at the same time. Such a provision would be an improvement.
The only other Clause that is, as the hon. Gentleman said, of general interest and which raises something that can be considered as contentious is Clause 19. It is the only one which raises a general question of principle and a matter of interest to the House as a whole. The Lord Chancellor has said that he would be grateful for the advice of this House upon it. It concerns a very short point: whether a widow's damages recovered under the Fatal Accidents Acts should be handed over to the successful plaintiff entirely or whether some power should be reserved to the court to order, in appropriate cases, that it should continue to control either the capital or the income or both on her behalf.
In a sense, such cases are quite different from ordinary cases. They are usually cases in which the claim arises out of the death of the husband either as the result of a motor accident or of industrial injury, and the vast majority of the deceased were earning a weekly wage, either the average industrial wage or near it. Here we get the position that a widow used to managing a weekly sum suddenly ands herself in possession of a very substantial capital sum.
The problem then is whether one should take the broad view that the State and the court should not be paternal and that people should be trusted to manage their own affairs, however stupid they may be about it and whatever the risks may be, or whether there should be discretion for the court to decide, either in all cases or in some, that widows should be protected by some control being exercised.
Personally, I am wholly in favour of continuing the power to give protection to all widows as it exists in the courts at present. I do not mean to say that it should be exercised in all cases—I do not think that it should. I think that many widows are quite plainly capable from the very first of taking control of large sums of money. I think that the


majority of widows after a short time, as it were, under tutelage, during which investment is done for them and they learn to realise that a capital sum produces a separate income, are perfectly capable of undertaking the management of the money themselves.

Mr. David Weitzman: Does not the same point arise in the case of a widow who, al common law, is awarded damages?

Sir J. Hobson: Certainly. But it does not arouse so much concern in that context because usually in such cases the acquisition of a substantial sum is not in replacement of a small weekly sum. What is unusual about fatal accident cases is that, instead of getting a small weekly sum, the widow suddenly finds herself with a very substantial capital sum. I think that this does make a difference.
I am sure that, like me, every hon. Member is contacted by many widows about their problems. There is no doubt that the death of a wage-earner effects a fundamental and radical alteration in the circumstances of his widow and that she has very many problems, anxieties and adjustments to make when that catastrophic event occurs.

Mr. Leo Abse: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman talking about things in the last century? Is he not aware that now one-third of married women are working, that the number is growing and that there are millions of them? To regard the family and the household as being under paternalistic and authoritarian rule is out of date. That is the main fallacy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument.

Sir J. Hobson: No doubt the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) intends to make a speech in this debate. I am expressing my view, which may be right or wrong. If he will be good enough to listen to me, he may have his turn later.
My view may be paternalistic, but all I am saying is that, after the death of her husband in a fatal accident, there is a period in a widow's life when she needs as much help as possible in coping with the innumerable problems with

which she is faced. One of the most difficult of these is that of finding herself in possession of a large sum of capital money which she has never enjoyed before.
I cannot think of anyone, however responsible and intelligent, who has never before had experience of looking after capital sums, who does not need a period of experience, under proper supervision, in order to understand the difference between capital and income and the very difficult problems involved in the management of a capital sum.
Private citizens have shown that they realise that this is a necessity not only for widows and infants and those who are sane, but for people of mature age, whether male or female, married or spinsters, or even ordinary young men who have never before had a capital sum. The common experience is that wise people who are conferring large sums of money on such people provide for a period in trust. In other words, they provide that someone should look after the capital for a time and see to its investment and allow the beneficiaries to have an income. Sensible people usually provide that as soon as the beneficiaries have had some experience of that situation they can take over the management of these affairs themselves.
This is a common feature, which I would have thought sensible, of the way in which ordinary citizens manage their own affairs when they hand over to a person of inexperience very large sums of money, and it is unobjectionable that the court should have power to do so. I am not saying that the court should insist on every occasion on managing it, but there are many cases when it is beneficial that the court should have that power and should exercise it.
The arguments are very well set out in the Report of the Pearson Committee. The argument in relation to the widow who has children is overwhelming. It is set out in paragraph 27 of the Report, which says:
In an action under the Fatal Accidents Acts, a widow with dependent children will normally have awarded to her the major part of the total sum of damages. It is assumed that she will use her damages for the maintenance and benefit of the children as well as herself. The assumption is of course in general very well-founded, and indeed there is evidence that a widow will often prefer to use


up her own fund first, leaving the children's fund intact, and will need to be persuaded by the Master or Registrar that some contribution towards the family expenditure can fairly be required from the children's funds. There is however the need to ensure the conservation of the fund by safeguarding it against early disappearance in some imprudent investment or undertaking and against too rapid depletion by excessive drawings. Most of the widows have no training or experience in the technique of handling large sums of money and in particular of distinguishing between income and capital. The Court has a duty, in performance of one of its traditional functions, to protect the interests of the children. If the widow's fund were to be uncontrolled, the practice of awarding the major portion of the damages to the widow would have to be reconsidered, and some different practice of awarding the major portion to the children and providing for periodical contributions from their funds to the household expenses might appear necessary, and even then there might be cases in which the widow, having quickly spent all her own fund, would have to be supported by drawings from the children's funds. There would be no balance of advantage in such a change of practice; it is simpler and better to retain the present practice. In our opinion —hellip; the Court's power to control widows' damages in cases where there are dependent children should undoubtedly be continued.
That was a unanimous recommendation of the Pearson Committee, which studied the matter with great care.
In paragraph 31 of its Report, the Committee added the reasons why in addition it recommended that the power to order control of the fund for all widows should be incorporated in the Bill. I find the arguments in that paragraph convincing and, if it were thought desirable, I would support an Amendment to extend the power of the court in certain circumstances when it thought it necessary to extend the control for widows.
This view has powerful support from all those who have experience of these matters. The Law Society, the Trades Union Congress, the Master of the High Court and the registrars of county courts all support the view that the existing system ought to continue. From the judicial point of view it is interesting to note that Lord MacDermott, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, where this power does not exist, has thought that it ought to exist and would like to have it for the purposes of the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. Lord Justice Pearson himself came down on the side of this view and the present Lord Chancellor takes the same view. In view

of that weight of opinion, I am bound to say that I believe that the Pearson Committee was right.
It is not simply that there may be a clever man who is trying to sell a widow a business. There is a whole host of circumstances which one ought to consider. As I have said, the principal reason is that it is an unusual experience suddenly to come into the enjoyment and control of a very large capital sum and that one needs a period of time in which, under tutelage, as it were, one can see the difference between capital and income and have assistance as to the way in which investments ought to be made. It is only after that experience that people realise the difference between having a weekly income and having the control of a capital sum.
It is necessary to protect people without that experience from the feeling of extravagance and the idea that they are very well off when, in fact, they are not at all well off. After all, £5,000 invested today, less tax, does not begin to compare with the earning capacity of a good husband in good employment. People may think that they are well off because there is a large amount of cash at the moment and then all too quickly find that it has disappeared. The evidence before the Pearson Committee was that most of the funds in court have been dispersed and paid out within an average of five years. If such funds are to last for only such a short time, I see no harm in providing protection over that period.
We all know the case of the widow who obtains a very large sum of money in a country area where the whole of the village is drunk for a week celebrating on the proceeds of victory. These are cumulative arguments and not singularly conclusive, but there is also something to be said for protecting the widow immediately she has the money against the importunity of her friends and relations, which a kindhearted woman might find it difficult to resist.
There is something to be said for protecting her against those who are determined to take the money from her—and they exist and we have to recognise that they do—and to some extent we have to protect her against the feeling that matrimonial prospects are brighter than they really are if someone knows that there is


a large sum of money—and there are people who look not so much for a wife as for a financial programme.
The problem arises, and the Pearson Committee was right to recognise that it arises, from the fact that, instead of having small weekly sums, what appears to be a very large sum of money suddenly comes into the possession of a person with no experience. It is only for that reason that the power of the court ought to be retained, although I would hope that it would be exercised very liberally and always for a very short period.
That is all I desire to say on what is the only matter of major principle in the Bill. Perhaps I can ask a question about Clause 23, which the hon. Gentleman said was intended to extend the time within which the arrears of rent could be paid off. I am not sure that that is what the Clause does. It deals only with claims for possession of land in actions in the county court where there is an attempt to enforce the right of re-entry or forfeiture, and the County Courts Act already provides that a minimum period of four weeks must be given to allow the paying off of any arrears before a forfeiture or right of re-entry can be enforced. Under the law as it stands, there is no limit, although the county court must give at least four weeks. In its own discretion it can give any longer period which it thinks necessary or desirable.
The Bill does not extend the time within which arrears can be paid off, but gives the court power to give a defaulter a third chance. He has the original chance when he ought to pay. He has a second chance under the County Courts Act for such period in excess of four weeks as the county court may think desirable, proper and fair. The Bill, without any statement of principle or direction about the way in which it is to exercise its discretion, appears to give the county court power to give a third chance to a defaulter in rent who has already had two chances.
How does this tie up with the recent Protection from Eviction Act? Surely under that Act the court already has power to extend by up to a year suspension of the right of the landlord to recover possession. Does it not give ample powers to the county court to

suspend the right to obtain possession? If not, and if this is an entirely separate proceeding, why is it necessary and what cases have arisen in which it was desirable that a defaulter should be given not just a second but a third chance? Why are the present powers considered inadequate?
As I say, subject to these few comments, we think that this is an excellent Bill. We certainly do not oppose its Second Reading. It was prepared almost wholly by the previous Government, and for that reason we shall not vote against it.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I think that there is a good deal in the criticism made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) about Clause 23 of the Bill. I should like some more information from my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio on that matter.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a number of criticisms which, no doubt, will receive the attention of my hon. Friend. I am rather concerned, however, about his claim that the Bill was prepared by the previous Government. No doubt he is perfectly right about that, but it is very important to point out that the Pearson Committee was appointed, I understand, early in 1957—eight years ago—and reported in July, 1959—over five years ago. It was appointed to deal with what, in my view, is a very important and serious matter which the Bill deals with, namely, the investment of court funds.
My hon. Friend was good enough to quote an example which was quoted by the Lord Chancellor in another place. It is worth repeating. A boy of 10, in 1947, was awarded £1,000. In 1958, when he was 21 years of age, that £1,000 was worth £720. Having regard to the value of the £, it is worth less now. That is only one example. There must be a considerable number of cases of people who were awarded money, who needed and deserved it and who have lost very considerably as a result of the mode of investment and the fall in the value of money.
As I say, the Pearson Committee reported in July, 1959, and it was not until this Government came to power that the


Lord Chancellor, in another place, in November, 1964, introduced this Bill. Yet the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington tells us that the Bill was prepared by the former Government. One has only to recite these facts to show that it is absolutely scandalous that in matters of this kind, where serious loss was being suffered by people for many years, and on which a responsible committee reported unanimously about what should be done, time was not found by the last Government to introduce a Measure such as this. The public should be aware of that sort of conduct on the part of the last Government. This is obviously a matter which required the most urgent attention.
Under the Bill, the money paid in will, I understand and hope, be invested for the benefit of infants and widows. No doubt there was a good deal of substance in what the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington said on the technical points, but there is one point which I should like to make. I understand that the control and management of the money is to be in the hands of the Public Trustee. The House will remember that some time ago some people were very critical of the conduct of the Public Trustee in the administration of funds. That matter was investigated and reported upon, I understand, by the former Lord Chancellor. The allegations which were made were refuted.
I do not suggest for a moment that the office of the Public Trustee does other than good work, but some of the criticisms which were voiced still linger on. It is absolutely essential that steps should be taken to ensure that the office of the Public Trustee and his staff are thoroughly efficient, that they have expert advice and that they so conduct their affairs that there cannot be any question of anything being done except in the best interests of the parties whose moneys that office administers.
I wish to say a word or two on the point which the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington dealt with and which my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio referred to in moving the Second Reading, namely, the position of widows. Under the Fatal Accidents Acts, when a widow, or a widow with infants, is awarded money,

it is paid into court. If she wants some part of it for some purpose an application must be made to the judge who, in his discretion, awards such sums as he thinks fit or nothing at all.
I listened carefully to what the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington said, but the House must recognise that the position in this respect is illogical. In the case of a spinster or a widow, even with children, who suffers in a road accident and is awarded damages at common law, there is no control whatever by the court. What is the reason for the difference? Is a widow who suffers injury in an accident and who is awarded damages less likely to be tempted by some unscrupulous person to part with her money or to give loans to her relatives than the widow who is awarded damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts? I understand that the Pearson Committee recommended the retention of the present system. The Bill puts forward a compromise and would continue that control only in respect of a widow with infant children.
I recognise that this is not an easy question and that a good deal of argument can be advanced on both sides. In another place the view was put forward very strongly that this was the last relic of sex discrimination. Is not it? After all, we have had all these laws for many years which place a woman under a handicap, which put her in the category of an infant or lunatic in law. These restrictions have gradually disappeared. Is this not really a relic of that sex discrimination?
It is easy to say, "We ought to protect this poor widow against a scoundrel inducing her to part with her money or against relatives asking for a loan or an advance, by giving her the excuse of saying, 'I cannot give it to you, the court looks after it.'". Why pick out only the case of the widow with children who has been awarded damages under the Fatal Accidents Act? All the points made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman apply equally to the spinster and, indeed, to the man. Many men are so weak that they can be induced by a scoundrel to part with their money. Why pick out just this case? If this argument is right, there should be a review of the law by which in all cases


a right is vested in the court to control these moneys.
That is the logic of the argument. But we do not say that, and nobody seriously suggests that we should. I therefore hope that in Committee this point will be discussed in more detail. The logic is that unless it can be proved by actual instances that it is essential for this power to be preserved, this last remnant of sex discrimination should be removed.
I do not propose to go into other points which have been raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although I recognise that they call for an answer. I welcome the Bill and I congratulate the Government on having acted ex-peditiously in bringing in as quickly as possible a Measure which, I am told, was prepared by the former Government and which was not introduced before, although it implements the Report of the Committee over five years ago.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Howe: I was not intending to make any tendentious points, but I must confess to having been slightly provoked by what the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has just said. It seems a little unjust to fail to give credit to the former Government for having appointed the Pearson Committee.
The question whether or not to allow funds to be invested in other than trustee securities is a serious one. It raises a serious question of principle which provoked discussion, rightly, during the period—if one wishes to be historical and archaeological—of the post-war Labour Government, when trustee securities were not conspicuously successful in maintaining their value. We ought to recognise that this is a matter in which issues of principle have to be considered over a period. The former Government took the initiative in appointing the Committee. The present Government, not finding it as easy as they had hoped to introduce far-reaching measures of law reform, have produced a Bill which deserves support on both quarters of the House.
I was interested in what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the position of widows. I think the right view

to take is that the principle must apply equally to widows and to men of full age and capacity. If there is any argument for protection at all, it extends to both these categories. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), whom I see sitting opposite, must in his experience have come across at least some cases of this sort concerning the working man, in which, had he been able to advise those men, a better course would have been taken to deal with the money involved. The case in principle is the same, and the real judgment to be made is on the degree of paternalism which the State arrogates to itself in controlling these people of full age and capacity. My inclination is to agree to the compromise solution in the Bill which protects infants but does not embark on the wider field.
I should like to turn to a more specific point concerning the operations of the Court of Protection whose activities were marginally considered by the Pearson Committee although that Committee was not concerned with the charges levied by that court on funds under its care and control. That matter, therefore, is not dealt with specifically in this Bill. It could have been dealt with in the Bill and it can still be dealt with either in the Bill or, probably more aptly, by amendment of the Court of Protection rules which are made under the Mental Health Act.
I have had it represented to me from several quarters that the scale of charges levied by the Court of Protection on incomes from estates which are being looked after by the court can in certain circumstances be regarded as too high and too harsh. The House will remember that the estates which are in the control of the Court of Protection are estates of people who are unable, by mental incapacity, to control their own estates. The charges levied by the court are in two halves. First, under Rule 87 of the rules to which I have referred, there is a percentage charge levied on all the income of the estates which are administered by the court. It is true that the percentage is at a low rate, no more than 1½ per cent., on the lowest incomes. On incomes between £100 and £150 it is 4 per cent., and on all remaining incomes it is levied at 5 per cent. That is in addition to the charges made in respect


of documents settled by the court under Rules 89 and 90.
All these charges have one feature in common. They are not deductible for tax purposes from the income of the patient whose estate is being administered. The question which one is prompted to ask is: what does the Court of Protection do to deserve the imposition of charges of this kind? It is concerned with the supervision of the accounts, with the consideration and approval of particular steps such as the appointment of new receivers, the change of investments and things of that kind, but for the most part matters are presented to the court by the patient's legal advisers, things are cut and dried and the cases are not extensive in preparation.
The incidence of the 5 per cent. charge in one case which has been mentioned to me can be very substantial. This is a case—admittedly, an exceptional one—where the income of the patient was in the region of £7,000 and during a typical year only three applications for approval of routine transactions had to be made to the court. Nevertheless, the patient's estate had to pay £365 by way of 5 per cent. charges to the court, in addition to the charges made for the preparation of documents, and so on. That is really a massive impost on the net income, not itself being deductible for tax purposes.
There are three complaints. First, for estates that increase in size the 5 per cent. rate is regarded as too high; secondly, there is something unattractive in the notion that these charges which are payable are not deductible for tax purposes; and, thirdly, there is the possibility, so it is believed, that the court might be making a profit out of its handling of these estates.
I tried to investigate the last point, and I found that the income of the Court of Protection for the year ended 31st March, 1963, by way of percentage charges was over £83,000 and its income from the other charges was not separately indentified. On the other hand, I find that the court has a staff of between 140 and 150 people, so that the cost of the court can hardly be less than £200,000. It may well be, therefore, that no profit is being made by the court, and the Minister may well

be able to allay any misgivings on that aspect.
But when I turn to the more general consideration of the charges which ought to be levied, it raises a general point of principle. The court is administering a special service for people suffering from particular kinds of disability. It is not an insignificant social service, because in 1964 almost 26,000 estates were being looked after by the court and almost 3,000 new estates were brought into the court's care. This is significant to a number of people.
My own inclination is to suggest that, ex hypothesi, those whose incomes are being handled in this way are those who have incomes and who are, therefore, able to pay to some extent for the social service being rendered for them. But it is a compulsory social service and special considerations may apply. In particular, I find it difficult to see the justification for what I suspect is something in the nature of a swings-and-roundabouts argument—the argument that the large estates to some extent subsidise the small estates.
If those who are better off are to subsidise the cost of administering the small estates of people with small incomes, surely there is no particular reason for taxing for this purpose the better-off who happen to be mental patients and whose estates are being looked after by the court. Rather than that rich people under mental disability should subsidise on the swings the poorer people who do not pay full charges on the roundabouts, we should look, if we must look for any kind of subsidy for these compulsory social services, to the general taxpayer.
If we compare the situation with that followed by the trustee department of any of the major banks, we find that the percentage charges made there, in respect of an acceptance I know, decline rapidly as the income or capital value of an estate being accepted in the trustee department increases. One typical case is that the estate on capital value is charged at 1¼ per cent. on assets under £5,000 and no more than 2s. 6d. per cent. on assets of £75,000. I hope that the Minister has in mind, when the Court of Protection rules come up for revision, the possibility of looking sympathetically at this suggestion that the 5 per cent. rate could be reduced on the upper registers for the reasons which I have given, and


the possibility that over the whole board the charges should be regarded as deductible for tax purposes.
May I turn for a moment to one other point of importance within the general ambit of the administration of justice? The hon. Member spoke about some of the difficulties in the county court. I hope that when the Law Reform Commissioners are in action we shall see some improvement here. It is right to say that if an outsider can see any faint glimmer of hope in the Government's programme it is in this direction. Many of us who are practising the law and are concerned with law reform are ready to welcome the appointment of the Law Reform Commissioners, provided that they are able to get on with the job as quickly and as vigorously as we have been led to believe.
One simple matter which I hope they will look at is the fact that judgment summonses in the county court can still be dealt with only by the county court judge and not by the registrar. This point was considered by the Austin James Committee, in the 1940s, and by an inter-departmental committee more recently than that. No recommendation for a change has been made.
It seems absurd that highly paid judicial officers with a capacity for discharging their work in connection with major cases of importance should have an increasingly large percentage of their time taken up in the consideration of judgment summonses. There is one circuit of which I have some knowledge—it is a single-judge circuit—in which the judge, in the last year for which statistics are available, disposed of 25,000 judgment summonses, which is 500 a week or 100 a day. Surely this is a burden which could be shifted away from the judge to the county court registrar so as to set the higher judicial officers free to deal with other and more substantial cases which come to their court.
I hope that all these points will be borne in mind, if not in the later consideration of this Bill then at least in subsequent Bills dealing with matters connected with it.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp: It may be that I shall be the only hon. Member without legal knowledge to make a contribution to the debate, but I want

to look at Clause 20 in considering social services, and I refer to it because, in particular, I wonder, as one with some knowledge of outside social services, whether a figure of £250 is right or whether it should not be somewhat higher.
In brief, and as my hon. Friend explained, Clause 20 is a mild form of bankruptcy for the poor man. About 1930 there were 1,446 cases of administration orders, and in 1962 there were four. Those were the figures given by the Lord Chancellor's Department in the last Government.
These administration orders deal with families which are in real financial difficulties for many reasons—people whose family lives are seriously disturbed. In 99 cases out of 100 those families in difficult circumstances are facing an accumulation of debt, and the social worker when brought to the case is unable to handle the family's problems until she is able to handle the debt position. The original figure of £50 fixed in 1869 was an attempt in those days to provide a mild form of bankruptcy so that the person involved in such a total accumulated debt would be able to go to the county court and in that way have a quick and effective form of holding up the debtors for the time being, and then of having a rationalised attitude to this debt so that it would be paid in due course and of ensuring that no further debts would arise.
I am speaking with the consent or blessing of the Association of Child Care Officers, which welcomes the Bill, which, it says, will give them an opportunity whenever—and I suppose that it is increasingly so—child care officers have to enter into the problems of difficult families. This is a necessary weapon for them so that, for the time being at least, they can arrest the problem and sort out through the court the way in which the debt can be dealt with rationally. This will put the children's officers in a position to have a strong influence on the family not to incur further debts.
The only point which remains is whether £250 is the right figure. I tested this some months ago in the Lord Chancellor's Department, and apparently at that time there was no dissent from the figure. I subsequently tested it with the


Economic Secretary to the Treasury, whose Department said that it was a fair reflection in modern values of the original £50. To that extent I hope that it is non-controversial on both sides of the House.
However, I notice from conversations, and also from a document I have, that even children's officers, whose beneficent work lies behind the proposal, think that it might be something higher than £250 and be a more modern expression of that amount. I have here a copy of a document from the National Citizens' Advice Bureaux Committee, which, of course, is non-political and does a very valuable service. In a letter of 11th December, 1963, it says, dealing with the amount:
The difficulty, of course, is that present legislation limits county court jurisdiction to £400 and probably administration Order legislation ought to follow pretty closely that relating to county courts since the sort of people you and I worry about most are unlikely to be helped by legislation which makes it impossible for them to be dealt with in the county courts.
I will not mention precisely the figure which is here talked about, but it is a figure even higher than £400. So here we have definite evidence from one field of social service that we ought to have a modern conception of this amount and bring the figure up to date, and have a somewhat higher level. I also know from conversations with other social workers that they would bless a higher figure.
At the same time as I would hope for a higher figure I would not like to wreck the Bill, or cause undue controversy, even over the figure of £250, if I thought that between the two sides of the House, in the light of all the possibilities, there could be agreement. We have only to think of what can be done, for instance, with difficult families, who, I suppose, are immersed in debt because there is a tendency in these days to be in debt because of hire purchase and all the avenues and angles of consumer consumption.
While I hope for a higher figure than £250, in general I welcome the Bill, and that Clause in particular, and I also particularly welcome giving the Minister the right by Clause 20(7), as times change to vary, by Order in Council, even the figure of £250, air whatever it may be we shall ultimately write into the Bill. I think that this is a right and proper authority to give to the Minister, in a

matter of this kind, knowing that he would not—any Minister of any Government—normally ask for an Order unless he had for it very solid, substantial argument which would commend itself to both sides of the House.
This is a power he has not had for the last 50 years, and here is a means over the next 50 years of keeping the legislation up to date. The only difficulty about the Clause is that it is trying to overtake history which started about 1869. I hope very much that it will be possible by mutual agreement between the two sides of the House to consider a somewhat higher figure.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: This is clearly a very necessary Bill and one generally to be welcomed particularly because of the unsatisfactory state for years now of the investment of funds by the courts. It is highly desirable that those who are beneficiaries of funds in court should have an income commensurate with that to be obtained by normal prudent investment without any risk to capital. I think the figures which have been cited—of a child awarded £1,000 in 1947, a sum which 10 years later was worth only something over £700—are illustrative of the decline in the value of awards made to infants by the courts in recent years.
Most of the points which arise are clearly Committee points, but there are one or two of general importance which I should like to mention briefly in welcoming the Bill. First, the idea of a unit trust system is obviously to be welcomed, but I do not share the Government's enthusiasm for the control of investments to be vested in the Public Trustee. Not everyone is by any means satisfied with the investment record of the Public Trustee. I should have thought there was much to be said for the Pearson Committee's recommendation of a body separate from the Government, and advised differently, perhaps, from the Public Trustee. It would seem to me that those who are awarded damages, might benefit more if an entirely independent body was set up for the investment of these funds.
Secondly, I think it would be of some help to know what the taxation position is to be in respect of these funds. At the moment we do not know what the position


of unit trusts will be under the new taxation proposals adumbrated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. For example, will these funds invested for the benefit of infants attract capital gains tax? Will there be corporation tax on unit trust funds? We do not know. It would be very helpful if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could clear up these points.
Another point which occurs to me on reading Clause 1(5) is that the power to invest is there limited to
the purchase of property of any kind, whether real or personal.
Is it envisaged by the Government that there should be no power to lend money on security? Clearly, one can purchase debentures and by that indirect way lend money but not apparently lend directly on security.
My recollection is that under the Trustee Act, 1925, a distinction is drawn between purchasing and lending. At the moment it would seem that the powers under this Bill are restricted to purchase only. I wonder if the Government could explain why lending on security—for example, mortgages—is excluded. Or is this merely an oversight which can be dealt with by Amendment later?
I come now to the one point in the Bill which really raises a matter of principle, and that is Clause 19. I listened with great interest to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) said on this. He was followed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). They took different views. I disagreed with both, as it happened. The right hon. and learned Gentleman advanced the view, put forward without dissent by the Pearson Committee, which represents the traditional viewpoint and that I believe held by the majority of judges in this country and by many other august bodies. The other opposite view advanced was that really this Clause continued sex discrimination and so continued the disability of a widow, when she has children, to control her own funds.
I favour the compromise reached by the Government on this. There appears to me to be here a clash of two principles, firstly, equality of the sexes, and secondly,

the principle, with which we are concerned, that the State should have regard to the welfare of the children and that the parents have prime responsibility for children. There is a clash of two principles and clearly the welfare of the children is to prevail.
When I first read Clause 19 I rather favoured the view that a widow should be under no greater handicap than a widower. It is easy to say that people invest money very foolishly. Some people spend money, while others save it. Some people enjoy spending money, while others enjoy saving it. There is no general ground for controlling an adult's money, and I am sure that nobody on either side of the House would like to advance the view that the courts should be so paternalistic with regard to awards of damages that they should invest on behalf of those persons awarded damages, whatever their sex or condition. Whether people want to invest wisely or not is a matter for them.
There is, however, a distinction to be drawn in respect of a widow with dependent children. If a widower with dependent children is awarded damages, and he spends those damages, in law he is still responsible for those children and can be forced to maintain them. He is still the breadwinner. On the other hand, if a widow is awarded damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts, and has complete control of her share of the damages and invests them foolishly in the proverbial bankrupt fish and chip shop and consequently has no money with which to support her children, the responsibility for support nowadays falls on the State. There is, therefore, some distinction to be drawn between the widower and the widow, but the restriction on the widow should be as minimal as possible. But Clause 19 is so widely drawn that it imposes an unnecessary restriction on her.
As drawn, if a widow is the widow of a second marriage and there are no children of the second marriage but there is a child of the first marriage—an infant who was a dependant of the deceased—the widow is affected by the provisions of Clause 19. At the hearing a judge, because there is this child of the first marriage who was dependent on the deceased, would probably award that child a far greater sum than he


normally would award the child of a widower. That child will be cared for, therefore, by the higher apportionment made by the judge.
Why should the childless widow of the second marriage be subject to restriction in these circumstances, as she would be—or at least the judge would have a discretion to impose that restriction—on the present wording? I should like the Government to consider whether it would not be wise in these circumstances to introduce a qualification such as the introduction of the words "child of the marriage" which is used in the matrimonial courts at the present time. I have no experience of these words causing difficulty in matrimonial jurisdiction, and they would more truly represent what is intended by the Government in this Bill.

Sir Eric Fletcher: The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that it is only a discretionary power which the court will have, and in the kind of case posed by him, where the stepson has been provided for, that will obviously be a relevant factor for the court to take into consideration in deciding whether to exercise its discretion.

Mr. Hooson: I accept that, but I suspect that manylearned judges will share the view which has been so forcibly expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington and will impose their own personal view of the situation, because they have the discretion to do so and might think that it will be for the benefit of the widow to do so.
I do not think that this ought to be a discretionary matter. If it is a matter of principle, it should be clearly expressed by the Government, and the restriction on the widow should be drawn so narrowly that it represents only those circumstances in which Parliament thinks there should be this restriction on the widow.
I would be grateful if the Government would consider, too, the point raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), which I also raised in an intervention during the speech of the Minister without Portfolio, with regard to the jurisdiction of county courts in administrative matters. There seems no reason why this should not be extended to £400. It would meet today's conditions far better

than the restriction of £250. I imagine that the limit has been raised to £250 because this is considered to be the equivalent in today's money of the £50 restriction which obtained before the war. I see no reason why the limit should not correspond with the normal limit of county court jurisdiction.
There are several other matters which I should like to raise, but they are Committee points. I think that the Bill is to be welcomed, and I am sure that there will be no obstruction to its being given a Second Reading.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: The Bill has rightly been welcomed by both sides of the House, and I, too, would like to congratulate the Government on bringing in this necessary legislation which will provide a high degree of security for infants who have their moneys invested in court, and also give them some capital appreciation, because the delay in implementing some of the proposals of the Pearson Report has lost them some money. I congratulate the Government on putting this matter right at the earliest possible opportunity.
I wish to refer in particular to Clause 19. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Howe) who support the Bill, and with Clause 19 in particular. The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) said that in another place this vexed question of damages paid to widows under the Fatal Accidents Acts being paid into court was the last bastion of sex discrimination in this country. I notice that throughout the debate not one hon. Lady has been present to defend her sex while this last-ditch battle was being fought, perhaps appropriately on the day when Parliament is 700 years old. I think that they trust us to defend their rights, and do not consider it necessary to be present at this last-ditch battle.
The Bill deals with administering the funds of minors because minors have not the experience to administer their own affairs. It deals also with administering the funds of those who are mentally ill because such people have not the mental competence to deal with their own affairs. There can be no justification, in 1965, for saying that a widow who has


recovered damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts is in the same position as either a minor or a mentally ill person. Clearly a widow is competent to manage her own affairs.
A different situation arises, of course, if children are involved, because if there are children, the judge, in awarding damages, must take that fact into account not only in the damages that he awards to the children, but in the damages that he awards to the widow. Therefore, although that money is awarded to the widow, the court bears in mind the fact that she has a family to look after, and thus the compromise suggested by the Government is the right and proper one.
It would be illogical and quite anachronistic to insist, as the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) would have us do, that, in 1965, a court should retain the power to control money awarded to a widow without children. Suppose that a widow receives money, not under the Fatal Accidents Acts where she has recovered damages from the other side, as it were, because of its negligence, but under a policy of insurance on the death of her husband, where possibly his own negligence has been responsible for his death. Suppose, for example, that he drives a car and is killed because of his own negligence, and he is insured in the ordinary way through a policy of insurance. In that case the court does not come into the matter at all. The Bill would restrict the power of the court to control the investments only of those widows who have claimed under the Fatal Accidents Acts.
We have had some rather gruesome stories of what may happen. There may be the odd occasion when a widow would choose to waste the money. Such occasions would be very rare—especially such goings-on as have been described, where a whole village gets drunk. In the vast majority of cases the widow is extremely careful about the money that she has obtained, because she knows that her future livelihood depends upon it.
But when the money is held by the court and she has to ask for what is virtually hers she feels slighted, and is hestitant about asking for it. Sometimes, in the matter of buying a business, she knows more than the court. She should,

therefore, have the opportunity of obtaining the money in order to buy a business if she so wishes. The views of the House were asked about Clause 19, and the general expression of opinion—apart from that voiced by one hon. Member—was that the Clause is all right as it is and should be accepted without substantial Amendment.
When hon. Members have spoken about widows receiving damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts they have assumed that in practice the widows receive these huge sums of money in cash, and do not know what to do with all the pound notes. Such widows receive advice. Generally they have the advice of the solicitors who have acted for them in their original claims. In the vast majority of cases they receive good advice from such solicitors. They then put the money in a bank and receive the advice and guidance of the bank manager. It is wrong to visualise these widows receiving huge sums of money which they may be done out of by unscrupulous persons.
We should adopt a realistic attitude to the situation. We should agree that in 1965 a widow who claims under the Fatal Accidents Acts should be in the same position as the widow who obtains a capital sum of money in some other way on the death of her husband. In modern conditions she should he trusted to be able to administer that money herself, provided the interests of any children that there may be have not affected the actual amount of damages which the judge has awarded in his discretion, if he has decided what she should have as well as what the children should have.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: We would all agree that there is a great need for the Bill. I begin by adding to the strictures which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) properly made upon the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) who had the presumption—one can only call it that—to call attention initially to a speech made at a meeting of the Association of Labour Lawyers, at which it was suggested that the law should be reformed as quickly as possible, at a moment when we have in front of the House a Bill which reveals the extent to which, for


decades, widows have suffered severely as a result of the indolence of past Governments, and particularly the last Government who, having received a report which revealed the great difficulties which such widows were experiencing, allowed matters to rest for five years without doing anything about it.
I believe that we are all rightly concerned with the widow, for there is no greater or more grievous loss than the loss of a husband. We are concerned particularly with the amount of supervision which should be given to the damages received by a widow. Before we can approach this problem, however, and test whether the newly proposed supervisory practices are satisfactory, we must examine the whole question of damages which the widow receives and, in particular, the nature and character of the apportionments which are now taking place between a widow and her children. Much of the reasoning behind those who have supported the present supervisory compromise comes from the fact that they are aware of the present apportionments: in my opinion, their erroneous attitudes are prompted by the unsatisfactory manner in which damages are apportioned between a widow and her children.
First, let us consider what the widow is receiving. If we are thinking of taking a step forward to relieve the difficulties which have hitherto befallen the widow, we must feel satisfied that the Bill at least takes into account the present day needs of the widow, and try to make certain that the amount of damages going to a widow whose husband is killed in an accident is such that the community would regard it as a proper amount. The principle behind the measurement of damages, spelt out in the last century, was the idea of restitio in integrio. The intention was to put an injured party in the same position, as far as possible, as he or she would have been in had the wrong not been sustained. This was once the task of juries. It was the jury which worked out the socially acceptable standards of compensation. For the last few decades, however, except in areas of the law such as libel, the judges themselves have had a virtual monopoly of assessment.
In 1925 Lord Justice Atkin stated:

The law as to damages still awaits a scientific statement.
It still awaits such an approach. Our present pragmatic approach, as worked out by the judges, which tends to eschew completely the actuarial guides and the itemisation of various heads of damages and fixed scales, would not now be under heavy fire if it were not for the fact that the damages paid to injured workmen, and, in cases of fatal accidents, the awards made to their widows, were not under the judge's monopoly control. Our present approach would not be under as heavy fire if it were not for the fact that the awards are becoming both uncertain and inadequate in amount in comparison with the awards made in comparable countries, such as Belgium and the United States of America.
Every practising lawyer who is acting for a widow is aware that the problem facing him is not the question how the damages received are to be administered—if and when they are received—but the question whether he should or should not try to settle the matter out of court, because of the individual idiosyncrasies of judges. It is well known that there are plaintiffs' judges and defendants' judges, and the hazard that has to be considered in relation to such awards is not whether the sum awarded will be depreciated because it may be unwisely invested, or whether the investment of the award will be restricted, but whether an adequate award will be made. It has often been said that experienced judges do not believe that they would be assisted by reports of other cases on the matter of the amount to be awarded.
So legal practitioners are faced with the problem that it is not possible to advise with any precision as to the figure likely to be recovered until the name of the judge who is to try the case is known. This uncertainty naturally tends to the disadvantage of widows and injured individuals, and to the advantage of insurance companies. Faced with a modest payment into court, a widow finds that she is often not able to obtain confident advice which will enable her, with prudence, to risk the heavy costs which might fall upon her as a result of an erroneous guess having been made as to what the judge may award her.
An insurance company, on the other hand, can bear a comparable risk,


averaged as it is over a number of cases. Since this question of the uncertainty of the amount to be awarded is well known to be the real problem here, I submit that attention should be given to this matter now, when we are considering the whole question of damages awarded to widows and dependants.
I mentioned that the amount of damages awarded in investigated accident cases and in all types of fatal accidents compared badly with amounts awarded in countries such as Belgium. I think that this depends a lot upon what value we place on life. The amount of damages a widow receives in respect of the loss of her husband affords a very interesting reflection on the importance which a community places on life. When we find that this country is lagging so far behind the practices of some other Western European countries, can it be other than that the judges—who now have almost a monopoly control in the awarding of damages in such cases as we have been discussing—estimate the value of life, particularly the life of a working man, in a manner which does not accord or correspond with the general view of the community?
If we make inquiries about what happens in Belgium, for example, where it is the practice for judges to itemise the various elements of damages, the expectation of a working life, the capitalisation of annuities and the like, we find that the wife of a man who was earning the equivalent of a skilled workman in England, before becoming almost totally incapacitated, would receive an award of something in the region of £45,000 to £50,000—far beyond the amount that would have been awarded in this country or what a widow could possibly anticipate that she would obtain in this country.
I have heard, for example, that the claims manager of the overseas branch of an English insurance company has said that each personal injury claim costs about three times as much in Belgium as for comparable injuries in England.
While we are all expressing concern and compassion about what happens to the widow and children of a man injured through the negligence of his employing company, or because of the negligence

of a driver on the roads, we should concern ourselves primarily with considering the paucity of the damages which widows receive and upon which the family must depend. The fact is that the rules which operate, particularly in respect of widows, and the practices which have grown up in the courts are particularly unsatisfactory. Widows are shabbily treated long before the money is administered.
Although, in the nineteenth century, the courts consistently made awards which included the loss of prospective pecuniary adages now, as is known, the court usually confines its inquiries to capitalising, after appropriate discounts, the weekly contributions which the late husband made to the household. It has been said by Professor Street, of the University of Manchester, that the reason judges take only the amount of the money received for housekeeping by the widow while the husband was still alive is due—to use the words of Professor Street—to the "cynical attitude of the judges to working-class life." In fact, that is what is happening.
If we had the nineteenth century practice where, before assessing damages, people did not look to see what a working-class man might have given to his wife by way of housekeeping money, but looked at all his earnings, we should have a different picture. Today the courts assume that whatever part of his wage a working man does not give to his wife he immediately spends on drink and gambling. That may have been a valid assumption at one time, but how can we account for the vast expansion of National Savings and the unit trust movement if wage-earners spend everything else other than what they give to their wives on their own pleasure?
If the husband who has been killed would have invested part of the remainder of his money, even though it was an investment only in a football pool, the saving would ultimately have benefited his dependants. Is this loss of prospective pecuniary advantage to be put on one side in the assessment of damages by a judge?

Sir J. Hobson: Surely the hon. Member is wrong. Any plaintiff widow who is competently advised and represented would put before the court not only the amount of money handed over in cash


but all the benefits such as holidays and savings and prospective savings, and this should be taken into consideration.

Mr. Abse: Far from that being the position—I have been quoting almost verbtim from what was said by Professor Street—the judge takes into account investment income which follows as a result of the death of the husband and discounts that from the damages which he awards. Any accelerated gain which may come to the widow as a result of the death of her husband, any money which has been brought forward to her, is taken into account when the judge decides what should be awarded to a widow by way of damages.
Apart from the statutory exceptions for certain pensions, the widow finds that deductions can be made even for pensions. A policeman may be killed while he is off duty. He may be knocked down by a motorist while he is walking along the road with his wife. Before damages are awarded to the widow there may be a deduction on account of a police pension. Again, can anyone explain what I think should be explained, why it is that a man who is injured receives compensation in respect of pain and suffering and loss of amenity but a widow receives nothing for her grief or for the loss of the society of her husband?
Does the loss of a limb necessarily occasion more pain than the loss of a husband? The whole practice of awarding damages to widows at present conspires against them. If we are speaking today for women—I must say that I heard it in very muted tones from my hon. Friend—if we are speaking up for widows in the House of Commons today, we should be speaking upon such matters.
I could enumerate many other matters in respect of what is happening regarding damages for widows, but I will make this my last point. Is not it disgraceful that when a widow comes before the court deductions are made by the judge for what he deems to be her attractiveness? Is not it disgraceful that when a widow comes before the court she is examined in a few minutes by a judge and upon his whim and fancy is decided what likelihood there is of her being married again?
Having summed up the widow—and tastes vary—having judged her, the judge decides whether she is a likely lass, one who is likely to get married again, and he may make a substantial deduction in damages in order to make certain that the amount paid by the insurance company is not too big, because she will soon find a new husband.
I regard it as degrading for a woman that she should know when she goes into the witness box in such circumstances that she is to be measured in this way as though she were in some slave market. I regard it as quite repugnant that insurance companies have commenced the practice of employing sleuths and snoopers who—as hon. Members who are in the legal profession will know—when a case is pending are sent out as wretched detectives to see whether a widow is associating, or could be deemed to be associating, with a man; so that when the case comes before the court the prurient curiosity of the insurance company can be paraded, and it may be put to the judge, or suggested, that the woman is likely to remarry.

Mr. Weitzman: Surely my hon. Friend is taking a very far-fetched view. The awarding of damages in a case of that kind is for the loss which a widow has suffered as the result of the death of her husband. My hon. Friend is surely very far-fetched in the view which he is putting forward.

Mr. Abse: I can speak from personal professional experience. I recall, for example, a widow who appeared to me to be extremely attractive and about whom it undoubtedly could be said that there was every likelihood of her remarrying. I have observed this case after a number of years and this woman has not remarried. These matters are too vague to be assessed. I do not believe that it is within the province of any man to be able to decide matters of this kind. Certainly, I believe that no woman—no widow who has, after all, suffered enough—should be placed in this unhappy and unpleasant position.
I will try to suggest ways and means of overcoming the difficulty, but first I turn to the next problem, which is that of apportionment and which, again,


is a practice in respect of widows which I regard as most unfortunate in the way it has grown up. For some time during the nineteenth century the position was different from what it is now, where often the apportionment is such that 20 or 30 times more may be given to the widow than to the child. I do not know why this apportionment is made or why this practice has grown up.
Has this practice arisen on the basis that she will maintain the child? But then what is the basis of the award to the children? Is it, in fact, a nebulous cash assessment of the likelihood that the widow will not maintain the child? I do not understand why, unlike what happened for some time after the original Act was passed—when the apportionment was of a different character—this present practice should have grown up, particularly since there are considerable dangers within it.
What if the widow remarries and dies intestate after she has received a large apportionment and a small apportionment for her children? At least the first £5,000 goes to the stepfather of the children, a totally unsatisfactory position, In Canada and in other countries people are more careful and rules have been introduced to protect the children from such a contingency.
Immediately after the passage of the 1846 Act, so research has shown, if the court awarded, say, £1,000 to the widow—and I am quoting an actual case—£1,500 each was awarded to each of eight children. That was the practice at that time. It was wiser. It is time to end this lump sum method.
There are other anomalies of a technical character, although I will not weary the House with them. I merely reiterate that until we get over this problem of apportionment we will almost inevitably be left with the dilemma, in which some hon. Members have found themselves over this question, of whether or not a widow should have free and absolute control over her funds.
If we are to solve the problem of the size of the damages and if we are to get over this question of apportionment it is time that the suggestion contained in the Evershed Report—that the judges should come together so that greater uniformity should take place—was implemented, for this is something that is

urgently necessary. I am happy at the initiative which has been displayed over sentencing policy, at the way in which judges are coming together, hearing outside experts and then deciding what sentences should be given to those who have offended against the criminal law. This is a valuable exercise.
Since it is so valuable, it is needed, too, on this question of damages. It is needed so that judges are made aware that they are lagging behind their counterparts in other Western European countries in their assessment of damages. Perhaps they should be as open to sociologists and social workers in their assessment of these matters and as open to the views of comparative lawyers as they now appear to be open to penologists and others when considering the question of uniformity of sentences.
Since this will not require legislation but only initiative, I hope that the Minister without Portfolio will comment on this subject and will not be against an initiative being taken, perhaps from the Lord Chancellor's Office, whereby we may achieve greater uniformity in these matters and give much closer consideration to the question of apportionment. If we deal adequately with the question of apportionment, so that a proper sum is given to the children and to the widow, we will be left with only this question; should a woman, when awarded damages, be placed in a different position from a man, a problem which has exercised the minds of those who, unlike the right hon. and learned Member for Leamington, realising that we are no longer living in the nineteenth century, have been concerned about the question of the children if money is given to the widow?
If a proper apportionment were given, that problem would not exist. Every national woman's organisation wants the widow to have control of her money. I do not understand the notion, which is being presented, that there are predatory males who gather round seeking out widows who have received damages. Are there not predatory females, gold diggers, and so on, who perhaps seek and search out many a widower who may have recovered damages?
The truth of the matter is, as I endeavoured to indicate in an intervention, that one-third of the women in this


country are now working. We are, therefore, in a position where the whole concept of the family has changed from being an authoritarian one to an egalitarian one. Moneys are pooled. Houses are bought by the married partners jointly. Mortgages are paid off together, and a law which does not correspond to the realities of the prevailing sociological position is a law that is otiose.
I regret that this miserable compromise should now be coming into existence because it is a backward-looking concept and the women's organisations are right to say that it is an attack on them and on their capacity. I do not accept the view that a widow with children is equivalent to an infant or a person of unsound mind. The protests of the women's organisation should be heeded.
The problem of the children, about which everybody must exercise his mind, could be dealt with if we satisfactorily dealt with the question of apportionment. But, above all, most of us here who have been concerned with this matter and who have seen the unhappy results of paternalistic intervention from the point of view of widows, would only begin to be happy if we felt that less concern was being expressed about what claims would fall on insurance companies if damages increased, and more concern that we were making a proper assessment of the importance and value of life. We must surely realise that widows have the right to expect a reasonable future.
I hope that, while giving a perfunctory blessing to the Bill, the Measure will stir us afresh to reconsider the real problems and serious needs of women with or without children who are deprived of their partners.

5.59 p.m.

Sir Eric Fletcher: I can only speak again with the leave of the House. I will deal with some of the points raised during the debate. The House will not expect me to deal with all the detailed questions raised because a great many of them would obviously be more appropriately dealt with in Committee.
The Government welcome the general approval that has been given to the Bill from both sides, although my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse)

gave a welcome that was somewhat perfunctory. However, every other hon. Member who has contributed to the debate has unreservedly welcomed the Measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool made a number of observations which were not strictly germane to the main objects of the Bill. Although some of his observations are not matters which can be conveniently dealt with during the progress of the Bill, I am sure that his remarks about the desirability of having an adequate standard of damages and more certainty about the amount of damages awarded, along with his observations about drawing comparisons with damages awarded in Continental countries, will be brought to the attention of my noble Friend and of those responsible, as we are not in this House, for dealing with particular claims that come before the courts.
On the principal question of controversy which we are considering, to which nearly every hon. Member turned attention, namely, the wisdom or otherwise of the compromise contained in Clause 19, I think that we all expected that that would produce different views from different hon. Members. Whereas the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) thought that there ought to be more control over widows' damages, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool thought there ought to be less control, every other hon. Member, including the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Howe), the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes), concurred in thinking that we had acted wisely in adopting the compromise which is contained in Clause 19.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington asked me a number of questions on some of which I should like to give him my immediate comments. First, he asked whether the Bill applied to Scotland and if not, why not. The answer is that it does not apply to Scotland. The right hon. and learned Member is perfectly well aware that the Pearson Committee was not set up to investigate


the law of Scotland on this subject which, according to my information, is rather different from that of England. If it is thought necessary, that will be the subject of a separate investigation by the Law Commission to deal with the law of Scotland. Here we are concerned only with the law of England and Wales.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked me why it was necessary that there should be more than one long-term investment fund. The answer is that it was thought desirable, in giving the Lord Chancellor power to promulgate schemes under Clause 1, that apart from the possibility of having short-term investment funds there should be at least two different long-term investment funds. There may well be some beneficiaries interested in capital appreciation and others more interested in high income. Just as there are various categories of unit trusts which cater for different classes of investors, so there is no reason why widows should be deprived of an equal range of choice. I think possibly that there will be only two schemes but, as I think the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said, we do not yet know, and I am not yet in a position to tell the House, what the Chancellor will do with regard to corporation tax. It may be that that will introduce another element as a result of which it may be necessary that there should be a third scheme.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington then drew attention to the desirability, with which I entirely agree—and this was raised by another hon. Member—of giving beneficiaries annual information about the state of the funds administered by the public trustee. The Pearson Committee had something to say about that in paragraph 24 of its Report. It recommended that once a year, not half-yearly as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, after the interest had been added, the widow should be furnished with a statement as to the balance standing to the credit of her fund and the funds of any dependent children. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend, in giving effect to the machinery which the Bill envisages, will have regard to that recommendation.
I was also asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and

Leamington whether, when income is accumulated, there will be power under Clause 7 for the Public Trustee to reinvest it in a Common Fund or whether he will be confined either to putting it on deposit or investing it with the National Debt Commissioners. In reply I would say that it was certainly my construction of the Clause that it will be open to the Public Trustee, under the rules to be made under Clause 7, for all such income to be added to the long-term investment fund. But if, on further analysis, I find that there is any defect in the provisions of Clause 7 to secure that object I will take steps to see that the matter is further considered.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman then asked me a point on Clause 23. I am not sure that I ought to take up the time of the House in dealing with the matter now except to say that I do not think that his criticisms were well-founded. This does not give, as he thought, a defaulter a third chance. What Clause 23 does is to remove what is thought to be a technical defect in the law as it stands. It arises from a construction of the County Courts Act, 1959, which, as he will know, provides that where a lessor brings an action to enforce a right of forfeiture for non-payment of rent and where the lessee does not pay all the rent in arrear and costs at least five days before the return day, then the court, if satisfied at the hearing that the lessor is entitled to enforce the right of forfeiture, must order possession of the land to be given to him at the expiration of such period, not being less than four weeks from the date of the order, as the court thinks fit, unless within that period the lessee pays into court all the rent in arrear and costs.
In practice, it sometimes happens that the lessee is unable to comply with the order because the costs have not been taxed within the period specified, or for some other reason. In view of the words of the Section there is some doubt whether the court has power to make an order extending the time. It has been argued that, having made its order at the hearing, the court is functus officio. It is therefore desirable to take advantage of the Bill to cure any possible defect in the operation of Section 191.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington also


asked how Clause 23 tied in with the Protection from Eviction Act which the House has just passed. It does not seem to me that there is any conflict at all. The right hon. and learned Member will be aware that the Protection from Eviction Act, 1964, has a purely temporary operation, whereas we are now dealing with a Bill that will be permanent. The Protection from Eviction Act does not contemplate the protection of a tenant who is in continued default as regards payment of rent, whereas the County Courts Act, which we are now amending, is a procedure designed to give relief of forfeiture of a lease for non-payment of rent. I do not think that there is any inconsistency, nor do I think that the 1964 Act makes any less necessary the provisions, in-corporated in Clause 23.
I was asked some questions tending to throw doubt on the wisdom of appointing the Public Trustee to administer these funds. It was suggested that the House ought to have more information about the expert advice upon which the Public Trustee relies in the administration of funds with which he deals at the moment and on which he will rely in connection with the funds which will be entrusted to his administration under the Bill. I can assure the House that this matter was very carefully considered by the Government. We are satisfied that the Public Trustee enjoys, and is entitled to enjoy, the confidence of the public. He is advised by a most distinguished body of experts. The senior member of this body is Lord Bicester, and there are others of great eminence. I hope that the statement will do a good deal to reassure those who are concerned about the Public Trustee's administration of his affairs that he has access to, and avails himself of, very expert advice on all investment matters.

Sir J. Hobson: I should like to make clear that I did not criticise either the Public Trustee or his proposed administration of a Common Investment Fund, with the assistance of those who advise him. I should not do that, and I did not recommend—I wish to make this clear, too—that the advice given him or the particular restrictions involved in respect of ordinary funds and ordinary trusts should be made public because, of

course, he is acting as a trustee. What I did suggest, however—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to deal with this—is that, if one is setting up a Common Investment Fund, a fund not unlike a unit trust, it should be publicly known who are the advisers of such a fund.

Sir E. Fletcher: I am much obliged As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, he did not criticise the operations of the Public Trustee, but he did say that the public ought to know who are those responsible for advising the Public Trustee on investment policy. It was in response to that observation that I was informing him and the House about the distinguished gentlemen who give advice, Lord Bicester being the senior member at the present time. I shall invite my noble Friend to consider whether it might be useful to the public to have more general information on this matter made available.
The hon. Member for Bebington, who had been kind enough to tell me that he proposed to do so, raised the whole question of the scale charges now being levied by the Court of Protection. This is not strictly a matter coming within the terms of the Bill, nor is it a matter which is affected by its contents, but it is so nearly connected with the purposes of the Bill that it is a relevant question for anyone who has any doubts on the subject to raise in this Second Reading debate.
The hon. Gentleman's criticism was that some people feel that the scale of charges levied by the Court of Protection are too high and too harsh. He gave the instance of a mentally incapacitated person whose affairs administered by the Court of Protection produce an income of about £7,000 a year, which, under the scale of charges now in operation, attracts an annual fee of 5 per cent., that is, £350, and he inquired whether this was reasonable and on what basis the Court of Protection was, in fact, working.
The facts are these. The Court of Protection is responsible for administering the funds, to the extent of about £28 million, of those who, unfortunately, by reason of mental ill-health, are unable to manage their own affairs. It will be appreciated that the individual amounts involved vary considerably. It has always


been thought reasonable that the proper way to charge those whose funds are thus administered is by a scale fee. Naturally, this results in those with large incomes paying more by way of fees than those with small incomes, even though the actual expense of administering a fund may be the same whether it be large or small.
Rule 94 as it stands at present gives the court power to remit or postpone payment of the whole or any part of any fee where, in the opinion of the court, hardship might otherwise be caused to the patient or his dependants, or the circumstances are otherwise exceptional. I think the House will agree that that is reasonable. If it is reasonable, the result of the operation of the scale fee charged must be to produce higher fees in some cases than in others.
I think that the hon. Member for Bebington was chiefly concerned to see whether, taking them as a whole, the operations of the Court of Protection have earned a profit. The answer is that there was a time when the revenue from the court's fees just sufficed to cover the costs of the whole department. Today, however, and for some time past, this has not been so, and the revenue from the Court of Protection is not now sufficient and does not cover its administrative work. This means that, to some extent, it is subsidised by the taxpayer, and I think that it would involve an additional and unreasonable burden on the taxpayer if the fees were reduced.
The hon. Gentleman's other point, which, I think, was a valid one to raise, was whether the fees thus charged should be allowable for Income Tax purposes. I am not in a position to comment on that matter at the moment. I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his consideration generally.

Mr. Howe: I am most grateful for the undertaking which the Minister has just given on the latter point. I wonder whether he could, at least, give sympathetic consideration to the first—that is, that the scale charges might be reduce-able in respect of estates in the larger reaches. I appreciate that one does not wish to extend the element of subsidy more than is strictly necessary, but I respectfully suggest that there is something

unfair in charging too heavily patients who happen to be well off in preference to charging the general body of taxpayers who are fit and well, not suffering from disability. What I ask for is a reduction, at least to some extent, in respect of the higher figures.

Sir E. Fletcher: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's argument. Obviously, I cannot give him any undertaking about it because my view is that it is not unreasonable that, if a weathly man has his affairs administered by the Court of Protection, he should pay an appropriate scale fee. The work of the Court of Protection provides a social service to the wealthy, to those of moderate means and to those with no means at all, and I should have thought it reasonable for the expense of this social service to be borne in proportion to the ability of people to meet it rather than be subsidised out of public funds.
I apologise to any hon. Member whose questions I have not dealt with or answered.

Mr. Abse: I wonder whether the Minister would deal with the second point raised by the hon. Member, who expressed his deep concern about the fact that the county court judgment summonses were all being dealt with by the judge. This is a grievous matter. In this Bill we are placing new duties upon the county court. I am aware, for example, that in my own constituency one week out of four the county court is wholly occupied in dealing with judgment summonses. It really is not good enough that the county court should be made a department of hire-purchase companies. If this is to be done it should be done by the registrar.

Sir E. Fletcher: I had made a note of the fact that the hon. Member for Bebington raised this question, and also to say that I noted with great sympathy the point which he has made. I shall bring the matter to the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, whose province it is to deal with the matter, and I can assure him that his observations, supported by those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ponty-pool, will be given due and sympathetic attention.
I ought, before concluding, to say one word about the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham,


East (Mr. Mapp), who raised the very interesting question as to why, in Clause 20, we are merely raising the county court limit for the making of an administration order from £50 to £250. Although I do not think he said so in terms, I gather that he would have preferred to see the figure raised to £400, in order to equate it with the general jurisdiction of the county court.
This is a matter which I think can usefully be pursued further in Committee. I should like to hear what other hon. Members on both sides of the House think about it before committing the Government one way or the other. I was impressed by his arguments that this is a real social service, and I am aware that the arguments for increasing the jurisdiction and the £250 are supported not only, as he said, by the National Citizens' Advice Bureaux Committee, but also have been raised from time to time by county court judges and registrars.
On this subject, I think the House should remember that there are certain considerations of public interest on the other side to be borne in mind. It is very desirable that, in the class of case to which the hon. Member referred, there should be facilities for enabling a family placed in the circumstances described to get their affairs straight and rid themselves of the difficulties and embarrassments with which they are faced. On the other hand, it would not be right for the administration order procedure to be made available for tradesmen who have been running a business, and where bankruptcy proceedings are obviously the appropriate remedy. It may well be that one may come to the conclusion that one could extend the jurisdiction somewhat, and still be able to draw a distinction between the class of case which the hon. Member had in mind and the tradesman whose debts exceeded £250 where bankruptcy would obviously be the appropriate remedy. I can obviously give no commitment.
I repeat my apologies to any hon. Members whose comments I have not dealt with. I hope they can be pursued in Committee. Again I thank the House for the general welcome which it has given this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable common investment funds to be established for the investment of moneys in certain courts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and certain other moneys, it is expedient to authorise—

1. The issue out of the Consolidated Fund of—

(a) any sums required for making good any default of the Accountant General of the Supreme Court of Judicature in England with respect to any money, securities or effects in any court in England or Wales or any money or securities deposited with him under or by virtue of any enactment, so far as those sums are not paid out of moneys provided by Parliament;
(b) any sums required for making good any amount by which, after the making of any deduction provided for by the said Act of the present Session, the income received by the National Debt Commissioners in any period from investments made in consequence of the transfer of money to them under rules made with respect to funds in court falls short of the aggregate of the sums due to be paid or credited in respect of that period by way of interest on moneys in court placed to deposit and short-term investment accounts;
(c) any sums due, under rules made with respect to funds in court, from the National Debt Commissioners to the said Accountant General which they are unable to pay;
(d) any sums paid into the Exchequer in pursuance of the authorisation conferred by paragraph 3(c) below; and
(e) any increase attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session in the sums required by section 7 of the Public Trustee Act 1906 to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.

2. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any sums required for making good any such default of the said Accountant General as is mentioned in paragraph 1(a) above;
(b) any sums required by the Minister of Public Building and Works to enable him


to make payments in pursuance of agreements between him and the Church Commissioners for the commutation of benefits conferred by section 10 of the Courts of Justice Concentration (Site) Act 1865; and
(c) any increase attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session in the sums which, under any other enactment, are payable out of moneys so provided.

3. The payment into the Exchequer of—

(a) any fees received by the Public Trustee that are attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session;
(b) the amount by which the income of the National Debt Commissioners received as mentioned in paragraph 1(b) above exceeds the aggregate of the sums therein referred to; and
(c) any sums received by the National Debt Commissioners upon the realisation, in pursuance of any provision of the said Act of the present Session, of investments held by them.—[Sir E. Fletcher.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

6.28 p.m.

The Chairman (Dr. Horace King): Hon. Members will find in the Lobbies a list of the selected Amendments and the grouping of the Amendments.

Clause 1.—(RESEARCH COUNCILS.)

Mr. David Price: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 12, to leave out "the Science Research Council and".
I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) to apologise for his absence from the Committee this evening. Unfortunately, he is suffering from laryngitis and, without the use of his voice, he could make little contribution to our discussions. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and I will do our best to take his place, although I do not think that we can emulate my right hon. Friend's characteristic panache.
As I am sure the Committee would appreciate, this is not intended to be a belligerent Amendment. Nor is the next.

Rather, it is a probing Amendment, as is the next. Here we are setting up two new research councils, both dedicated to the Haldane principle, about which I spoke—I think, with general approval—on the Second Reading of the Bill. I think that it is only fitting that they should have some form of parliamentary baptism.
If the Trend Committee can be said to be the parent of these two research councils, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State can be said to be their godparents. Furthermore, I think that it would have been discourteous both to the Secretary of State and to the two new research councils to have raised the points which I wish to raise on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", rather than by the more precise means which I have used. I realise that this Amendment is technically inelegant, but, as my purpose is to stage a short discussion rather than to press an Amendment, I trust that the Committee will forgive me. I hope, also, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State will accept that my comments are intended to be helpful—though, possibly, not easy to answer off the cuff—rather than, as I said at the beginning, to be belligerent.
I should like, very briefly, to compare the Secretary of State's proposals for the Science Research Council with those of his predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone. Of course, they follow them very closely, but there are certain minor variations, and I should be very grateful if the Secretary of State would care to comment on them. I take, as the authoritative text, what two Secretaries of State have said—the Secretary of State's statement in his Written Answer on 26th November last year and his comments on the Second Reading, and my right hon. and learned Friend's Written Answer on 28th July of last year.
As I see it, the first task of the Science Research Council will be the allocation of research and postgraduate grants. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State said on 26th November that this council would
… take over the functions of the D.S.I.R. in respect of research grants and postgraduate training awards not within the fields,


of the other Councils."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 26th November, 1964 Vol. 702, c. 206.]
My right hon. and learned Friend said the same thing on 28th July.
If hon. Members look at page 40 of the Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy for 1963–64, they will find the figures for the D.S.I.R. contribution to research at the universities and colleges of advanced technology. It is interesting to note that these have increased from just under £1 million—£920,000 to be precise—in the academic year 1957–58 to over £8 million in the current year. Does the Secretary of State visualise this trend continuing or does he visualise stabilising it for the moment at about the present figure? Secondly, how does he envisage the relationship working between the Council on Scientific Policy and the new Science Research Council on the selection of priorities as to the fields of endeavour which the Science Research Council, going into details, would be minded to support?
As I said on Second Reading, I think with the general approval of the House, the real problem of the Government, and indeed of the nation, in the deployment of our scientific effort is that of selection. With our limited resources, substantial though they be, we have an urgent and continuing problem of selection. This is just as true in sponsored research in the universities as it is in the fields of research directly undertaken by central Government. I am sure that the Committee would like to hear the Secretary of State's views on those problems.
In winding up the Second Reading debate the Joint Under-Secretary of State may not have had time to answer these questions, and possibly I have not given the Secretary of State sufficient notice today, but we should like to hear his views on the governmental administrative problems in connection with selection. I am sure that we should all reject the idea of university scientists receiving their grants on the basis of Buggins' turn, whether talking about individual scientists or about selections between competing fields or about selections between competing institutions.
I realise that the more one selects, the more open one is to being criticised for ignoring certain powerful interests and certain universities who feel that

they are being left out in the cold. But in my view the allocation of grants must fit into a general pattern of scientific priorities. This is why I raised the question of how the Science Research Council would work vis-à-vis the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy.
Secondly, it must be based on national scientific possibility. There is quite a case to be made for supporting further the fields in which we are already successful rather than saying, "There are some matters which we are ignoring. We have no one any good here, and we ought to have". There is a great case to be made for supporting success.
Thirdly, we must look at our priorities in terms of available human excellence. There is a lot to be said for supporting a top man, and supporting him with his research students. It would be invidious to give names, but one recalls recent Nobel Prize winners. The Medical Research Council has shown a good deal of imagination in support of certain distinguished men with an international reputation. Fourthly, selection must have relation to current views of national economic need.
How are these priorities to be selected? It seems to me that there are three bodies concerned. There is the Secretary of State himself, supported by his Department. There is the Council on Scientific Policy. There is the Science Research Council, which we are setting up in the Bill. There is also a fourth interested body, the University Grants Committee, because I believe that the money which is allocated through the Science Research Council has an influence on what is done in a particular university. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is in a position to tell us whether he can see some method of meeting the difficulty, such as having a member of the University Grants Committee as one of the members of his new Science Research Council. I am sure that we should all be interested to hear his observations on the matter.
There is one separate matter which, I believe, arises in this context, and that is the problem of the emigration of scientists. The Committee knows that quite a number of steps were taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone, but there is one particular step about which I


should like to ask the Secretary of State in this context. He will recall that on 31st January my right hon. and learned Friend said that:
The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is prepared to consider applications for post-doctoral fellowships from scientists who propose to leave for research experience overseas, and who wish to take up their fellowship on their return."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January 1964; Vol. 688 c.101.]
This, it seems to me, was an intelligent proposal. Is the Secretary of State in a position to tell us what progress has been made in this direction? Has sufficient experience been gained by the Secretary of State to let us know whether he sees this having a major influence on keeping our scientists in this country? Although we all agree that it is useful for them to go abroad for a spell, what worries us is when they go abroad for good.
In this context, I wonder whether one of the problems has been that of insufficiency of equipment experienced by particulars scientists and whether one of the attractions of going to the United States is the greater availability of equipment, rather more than the question of salary. I should be interested to hear what the Secretary of State says about that.
Turning to the other responsibilities of the Science Research Council, as far as I can see the proposals by my right hon. and learned Friend and the Secretary of State's intentions are precisely the same. The Science Research Council will take over responsibility for the activities of the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science, the Radio Research Station and the Royal Observatories. On this side of the Committee we entirely agree with the reasoning behind these changes, which the Secretary of State elaborated on Second Reading.
One technical matter arises in relation to the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science—the Rutherford Laboratory. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) will seek later in our proceedings to raise a number of points about the pay and conditions of employment of staff in the Rutherford Laboratory who, under the Bill, are to be transferred from the Atomic Energy Authority. I will content myself with the general point, with which I am sure the Committee agrees, that staff should

not be worse off or even feel worse off, which may not necessarily be the same thing, as the result of the transfer of their laboratory from one parent body to another. I am sure that there is general agreement about that.
I will not go into the whole question of scientists working in publicly financed research stations. If the House sees fit to set up a Select Committee on Science and Technology that would be an appropriate body to go into such a subject in detail. But I will make one point with which I am sure hon. Members who take an interest in the question will agree: these are subjects which we ought to discuss in the House, though I do not think that they are very suitable for general debate on the Floor.
On Second Reading the Secretary of State told us that
the Science Research Council will also advise on United Kingdom policy towards international research bodies …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1964; Vol. 703, c. 1982.]
He quoted C.E.R.N., the European Centre for Nuclear Research, and E.S.R.O. the European Space Research Organisation. These are in accord with the proposals of my right hon. Friend. But I wonder whether the Secretary of State will say a word about the expansion of the activities of C.E.R.N. It is within the knowledge of a number of us that this has been under discussion recently. If he cannot say tonight what will be the Government's views, perhaps he can give an indication when we can reasonably expect a Government statement on the proposal to build an even greater and loftier accelerator at Geneva.
Secondly, will the Science Research Council advise on our participation in the European Nuclear Energy Agency—in neither of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals have I found any reference to that Agency—or will it be left to the Atomic Energy Authority, which I presume comes under the Minister of Technology—or does it come under the Minister of Power? It is important to keep both the European body and the Atomic Energy Authority in their reactor development programme working in close co-operation with the Central Electricity Generating Board, which—let us face it—is the ultimate customer for any successful work done in power reactor development.
Can the Secretary of State tell us whether E.L.D.O. comes with E.S.R.O. under the Science Research Council? By dint of answers to Questions in the House, I assume that it comes under the Ministry of Aviation. I will not discuss the space responsibilities of the Science Research Council now because there is a later Amendment on the subject.
Can the Secretary of State tell us whether the Science Research Council will take over responsibility for our participation in other scientific bodies as they come along, or would I be right in presuming that it would take responsibility only in fields that would not be covered by the other research councils? Many of us can see a considerable expansion in international project work in medical research. We have heard of the discussion about European co-operation in respect of cancer. I presume that this would come under the Medical Research Council and not the Science Research Council. There is also oceanography, in which there is excellent scope for international co-operation and projects. Presumably, it would come under the second new research council. There is also meteorology, a natural subject for international or world co-operation.
Finally, is the Secretary of State in a position to tell us about the appointments that he intends to make to the Science Research Council, or does he have to wait until the Bill becomes an Act before he can appoint anyone? Perhaps he might feel able to indicate the numbers that he would propose to have on the Council and the balance of experiences that he would like to see represented when he makes his appointments.
I repeat that the Opposition give the Science Research Council a very hearty welcome, but I should be grateful if the Secretary of State could reply to some of my questions, which, I feel, are pertinent.

6.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Stewart): I agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) in regretting the absence of the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). We read of the reason for it with regret, especially as we remember the lively speech that he made on the Second Reading of the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman said that perhaps the Amendments were a little inelegant. I would go a little further. As they stand, they would leave the Bill completely meaningless. They would require the establishment of two bodies, both of which would then be deleted from the Bill. However, the art of drafting Amendments is learned in opposition, and I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will do better with the passage of the years. I take the point that the hon. Member made, that really my speech now is in a sense one on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".
The hon. Gentleman asked about the trend of expenditure on scientific research. One must expect expenditure in this field and in all fields of research to grow as total national resources grow. As in any growing organism, the parts of it, particularly those which are brain centres, have to grow with the rest if the organism is to remain healthy. It would not be a question of thinking of this as a figure at which it would stabilise.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the trend will continue. If that means whether we are to expect a uniform percentage rate of growth each year, that seems exactly the kind of question on which one ought not to try to bind the future, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gave when he was discussing the art of selection of different projects for research. Out of the total amount of resources that the country feels that it can devote to what I might call the intellectual future—that is to say, the capital investment that takes the form not so much of producing a machinery, but of investing in thought and discovery—we have to consider the kind of research for which the Science Research Council will be responsible and that for which the other research councils and others to be set up under the Bill will be responsible, and other research carried on in universities and supported from public funds. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is a question of selecting priorities.
If one looks at any one part of the whole field of research, taking, for example, that part which falls within the field of the Science Research Council, and asks at what rate it will expand, the answer must be, "This can be decided only in the light of a comparison of those kinds of research with all the other kinds


of research for which other research councils and bodies are responsible." So it would not be sensible to start in advance predicting the rate by which any one line of research would expand.
I take the general question that the hon. Gentleman asked about the selection of research projects—the whole question of priorities in research. I think the machinery is plain enough. The Science Research Council and the other research councils are responsible for seeing that the research is carried on. They have the problem of priorities within their sphere. The Science Research Council has to try to decide what fields of knowledge fall within its responsibility, where it is most sensible to try to make exceptional advance and to put in exceptional effort at any given time, and where that would not be so suitable. It has to decide that in the knowledge of what total funds are likely to be available to it.
But there is the larger problem that faces the Government. The Science Research Council is not the only Council. The other research councils will similarly be considering the priorities within their own fields. Finally, the nation, through the Government, has to decide the major question of priorities—that is, the priorities between the claims of the various groups of research represented by the various councils.
It is for that function that the Council on Scientific Policy is needed. It has what one might call the supreme function of advising the Government on the major allocation of the total funds available to research between the different councils, either established or to be established under the Bill. Then, of course, its advice has to be taken in the knowledge of what is being done in research by bodies other than the councils, for instance, work done at universities and financed through other sources.
The hon. Member asked on what principles we make these selections. He will realise, however, that he then proceeded to give quite a good answer to his own question. I think that I said on Second Reading that one of the problems of bringing together men of science and men of Government was that men of science like to know and men of Government realise that very often they have to guess.
Here, above all, we are in a line of activity in which what we have to look for is highly intelligent guess work—and I do not use that word in any light hearted sense. But it is in the nature of guessing because nothing could be more ignorant or more fatal to research than to demand proof before one begins on a certain product that it will be productive and will yield measurable results in a measurable time. Whatever approaches may be right, that one certainly is not.
It can happen in scientific discovery that one uses resources, skilled manpower and protracted studies, but comes to a dead end. In taking the short-term view, one might say that all this has been wasted yet it may well be the case that it was essential to the advancement of knowledge to find out first whether that road led anywhere or not. That is why I say that there must be, to some extent, guess work, but there are some Government activities in which one can proceed with something like certainty.
I take as an example another section of my own activities. I know that work on particular building programmes will provide a certain number of school places. In this case, however, I am not in such a position, but must use a degree of guess work. The vital thing is that the guess work should be as intelligent as possible and that is the purpose of this whole apparatus of councils and of the Council on Scientific Policy. The purpose of the proposed Council on Scientific Policy is to survey the whole field and advise the Government accordingly.
What sort of guiding lines can there be for such intelligent guess work? I think that it can be done by listing the needs we have to bear in mind. One of these obviously involves the sum total of the resources that the nation can make available for scientific research. There again, however, one cannot deal with the problem by saying at the outset that the Government will make available a fixed figure on which scientists must work. The scientists might say that that sum of money will not do, that it might enable them to make inadequate progress in certain directions and that possibly either more or less might be better according to what the Government feel is possible.
We can only start with a figure as a provisional sum. Then we have to consider the comparative relation of the


different projects to obvious and admitted human needs. That is a tricky problem because one may fall into the error of trying to demand more from scientific research in the nature of immediate usefulness than is wise. None the less, this criterion must come in to some extent and there have been periods in history when it is clear that a great deal of human intelligence has been devoted to trying to solve problems which a moderate amount of common sense would have shown could not be of great use to mankind in any way.
We must take that into account to some extent and ask whether a project is clearly very likely to have fairly speedy relevance to increasing the total wealth of the nation. If it has, then, of course, it can be claimed that it will not only be valuable in itself as a piece of research, but that it will help other researches as well by increasing the resources on which they are carried out.
In medical research it is a little easy for a layman to give meaning to the phrase "obvious and admitted human needs". Another factor to be taken into account—and in this we must rely very heavily on expert advice—is the possibilities of what are sometimes called "break-throughs" in particular directions. Can it be said of any branch of discovery, "This is the critical moment. Throwing in more resources fairly speedily will make all the difference"? If one can demonstrate that, or make it appear probable in one line of research rather than another, a score is chalked up for that line.
One must also consider, as the hon. Gentleman said, who is available to do the job. It is not sensible to resolve that one will give high priority to a branch of research in which at present one cannot feel that one has available people who both have capacity to do the job and want to do it. One must be guided here of course by what a man wants to do.
I remember many years ago visiting Dresden and being told of a scientist who was virtually imprisoned by the Elector of Saxony with instructions to find out how to turn other metals into gold. He never succeeded in doing that, but he did develop porcelain on the way. Come to think of it, that story perhaps

suggests that there is, after all, something to be said for compelling scientists. However, the general moral of history points in another direction.
One must also generally take into account who is available to carry on the job. The point raised by the hon. Member about C.E.R.N. is really an example of this kind of thing. One can undoubtedly say that it is an important branch of research. It is not one that can be dismissed by saying that it has little relation to obvious and admitted human need at the moment. Nevertheless, it is very expensive and one must weigh in the scale against it the amount of resources it will take away from many other branches of knowledge.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to excuse me from being more precise in answering that point. Indeed, I cannot answer all the questions he put, but I have tried to put the factors that will be taken into acount in trying to answer basic questions of priorities. But there remains the final unknown. These factors are not all qualitatively alike. One cannot just add or subtract them. They are qualitatively different. How does one, at the end of the day, evaluate them? This is not the work of science in itself. This must be an art.
7.0 p.m.
To take an example from a different subject, but embodying the same principle; the housing committee of a local authority trying to work a points scheme for applicants for vacancies in its housing also has to make a list of things to be taken into account—the number of years on the waiting list, size of the present accommodation, considerations of health, and so on—and finally has to say how much time on the waiting list is worth how serious a report from the doctor as to the health of the family concerned. I know of no scientific technique for weighing those two against each other. In the end, it must be a matter of judgment and evaluation. I do not think that one can get further than that.
It therefore seems to me that the arrangements for bringing forward all these different factors to be taken into consideration should be as straightforward and as tidy as possible and that we should attract into our service people as able as possible to advise on the final decision


which one has to take. That is part of the purpose of the Bill. If we are ever to perform satisfactorily this incredibly difficult job of judging scientific priorities, the organisation for doing it must be reasonably tidy. That has been in the mind of the Government, as it was in the mind of the previous Government.
Although I cannot answer, and do not believe that anyone can give a final answer, the question of how to evaluate all these, I merely say that these are the things which have to be taken into consideration and that there are certain errors which must be avoided, such as the error of Buggins's turn and the error of asking for results too quickly. In the end, one is more likely to get the right answer if the organisation of the councils is such that it is reasonably easy to get a clear picture of what the problem is. I remember hearing a scientist saying on television last night that one of the most important things in science was to know what were the right questions. One of the reasons why we want to make these changes is that we believe that they will make it more likely that the right questions will be spotted.
The hon. Gentleman advanced one principle about which I feel a little doubtful, his principle of reinforcing success. I appreciate some of the argument for it, but if we are not careful, that might be a trend which would lead us to run away with far too many resources on one brand of research to the neglect of others. One ought always to be asking, if one thing is being outstandingly successful, the reverse question—why some of the others are failures. One cannot lose sight of one of the other factors, which we have both mentioned, which is the relation to clear and obvious human need. If it is found that one branch of discovery is being amazingly successful but that there are others closely related to human need which are not, it is not sufficient to say that we should reinforce success. One must ask why there is failure in the others, and that may affect the judgment of resources.
The hon. Gentleman referred to arrangements which could be made to reduce the likelihood of distinguished scientists going abroad. We are proceeding with this problem. I am not in a position to make a further statement

about it now, but I certainly do not overlook it. I think that it is true that equipment is at least as important as personal salary in affecting where a man wants to work. Equipment means scope, the opportunity to feel that a man is using his capacities to the full and doing a job worth doing.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the staff of N.E.R.C. I want to repeat what I said on Second Reading—that certainly nobody will be worse off. The hon. Gentleman put a slightly higher target—that nobody should feel worse off. It is always a little difficult to make oneself responsible for the feelings of other people, but I will go so far as to say that nobody will have just cause to feel worse off. I am sure that that will be so. I think that it would be proper to wait until the relevant Amendment is moved before dealing with the particular point in this connection.
We are, of course, proceeding with trying to assemble the people who will be needed and without whom the work cannot be done, but we have to wait until the Bill is a stage further towards becoming law, because until then we cannot make appointments in a formal sense.
I recognise that I have not covered all the hon. Gentleman's questions. Some of them are questions which mankind has been asking ever since it began to think rationally, and nobody has yet provided the answer.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): All the more reason why the right hon. Gentleman should.

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must give us a little more time.
However, I think that I have covered most of what has been said. I should like to study the report of what the hon. Gentleman has said to see whether I can give him further information on a suitable occasion.

Mr. David Price: I thank the Secretary of State for a very helpful reply. My Amendment having served its purpose admirably. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. David Price: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 12, to leave out "and the Natural Environment Research Council".
The Secretary of State will guess that, like the previous Amendment, this is intended simply as a means of discussing the new Natural Environment Research Council. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of my not knowing a great deal about how to draft Amendments, but I put these Amendments in this inelegant way, knowing that it was inelegant, for the purpose of eliciting from the right hon. Gentleman just the sort of speech which we have just had.
I thought that it was fairer to him and the Ministry to put these considerations in this way rather than to wait for the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", when I might have raised any subject which came within the scope of the Clause. Having experienced it in reverse, I knew how one could get caught out on that discussion by a difficult question of which one had not had notice.
I am sure that the establishment of the Natural Environment Research Council will be welcome not only by the Committee, but in many parts of the country. It follows the recommendations of the Slater Committee and the Trend Report and I think that it is fair to say that some of the sciences which will be covered by the Council have been rather the Cinderellas of research. The right hon. Gentleman may have had one or two of them in mind when he took up my comment that one of the important factors in selection should be supporting success.
I did not wish to prolong the debate, but what I would have said would have been in the context of more international co-operation, because I do not believe that this country can hope to put in a major effort, on the scale deserved by the subjects, right across the frontier of known knowledge. That is why our problem of selection is very much harder than that in the United States of America or the Soviet Union.
In his Written Answer on 26th November, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Council would support research in earth sciences and ecology. In his Written Answer on 28th July, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Mary-

lebone (Mr. Hogg) described the scope of the Council as being the environmental sciences and natural resources. Is there any difference between the two? Are these alternative words which the right hon. Gentleman prefers to the words used by my right hon. and learned Friend, who specified a number of sciences? I would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Commitee whether what he called the earth sciences include all those which my right hon. and learned Friends listed and whether he has in mind adding others.
The list given by my right hon. and learned Friend was as follows: geophysics; geology; oceanography; fisheries; hydrology; forestry; terrestial ecology; and nature conservancy. I would ask the Secretary of State whether, as under my right hon. and learned Friend's proposal, the Natural Environment Research Council will be responsible for research grants and postgraduate fellowships and training awards in the fields covered by the Council in the same way as applies to the Science Research Council.
On the taking over of research bodies, I think that there was common ground between my right hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. Gentleman that the Nature Conservancy, the Geological Survey and Museum, the Hydrology Research Unit and the National Institute of Oceanography should come under the Natural Environment Research Council. In addition, the Development Commission in relation to marine and freshwater biology and fisheries will be transferred. I noticed that in my right hon. and learned Friend's proposal he mentioned soil surveys. I do not know whether the Secretary of State has in mind including soil surveys. I should like him to tell us whether that is so.
My right hon. and learned Friend also proposed that the Council would establish a Fisheries Advisory Committee on the same lines as the present Advisory Committee on Fishery Research of the Development Commission. If I understood the Secretary of State correctly on Second Reading, he intends to do the same thing.
In his statement, my right hon. and learned Friend said on hydrology that the Council would maintain close contact with the Water Resources Board. On


Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that the Minister of Land and Natural Resources would be closely interested in some of the work of the N.E.R.C. Do I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that the Minister of Land and Natural Resources will be the Minister responsible for water and water conservation? This certainly was not clear to me when we discussed the Machinery of Government Bill.
I wish to ask the Secretary of State one or two further questions. I should like to know whether he proposes, like my right hon. and learned Friend, to support research in geomagnetism and seismology undertaken by the Meteorological Office. Have we enough seismologists in this country, particularly if we succeed in making further progress on disarmament control where seismologists will be essential?
Secondly, does he visualise further international co-operation over the whole field of the earth sciences? If such cooperation takes place, would it be through this new Council or the Science Research Council?
Thirdly, I wish to raise a point which is parochial to my part of the world, namely, what relationship the Secretary of State envisages between this research council and the Ordnance Survey. Fourthly, does he envisage any work being done on human ecology, or will that matter come under a social sciences council if such a body is set up? Are we doing enough on oceanography? I know that a view has been expressed by a number of scientists and laymen about the effort that we make on such things as nature conservancy.
When we get into the field of high energy physics, the sums are vast. But the sea is all round this island. We are still a maritime Power, and there is still great wealth in the sea even though it is widely dispersed. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) has some fairly strong views on this matter, and I believe that he will be giving us the benefit of them on a later Amendment.
Before we finish with the Bill, will the Secretary of State be able to give us some indication of the size of the Council and the sort of experience which he will look for in making appointments to the Council?
Finally, I give the Council a very warm welcome from this side of the Committee.

7.15 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I wish firmly to support the recommendation of the Trend Committee in this matter. It is sensible to bring together the various activities visualised under the Natural Environment Research Council.
Like many other hon. Members, on occasion I have had to take part in the proceedings of Select Committees on opposed Private Bills dealing with water supply. I think that anyone who has that experience is brought face to face very quickly with the rather disturbing fact that had local authorities always taken the full account which they should have done, or could have done, of the underground water resources they might seriously have turned over in their minds whether the site on which they were proposing to build was quite the right one. The more one hears evidence from distinguished people in this matter, such as Dr. Buchan of the Geological Survey, the more rapidly one is made aware of the utter disregard all too often of matters of this kind.
I think that it is relevant to this discussion to say that if this new body is to fulfil the functions which we hope it will fulfil, it is very important that it should work in close co-operation with the local authorities involved in these matters. We have reached the stage when water supplies in this country are meeting needs which bear no relation concerning their siting to the sources of water most suitable to supply large populations. As a result, mile after mile of land is dug in order to lay large mains at enormous public cost. I hope that we can get a little more rationality into this procedure than has been the case in the past.
Moreover, with the setting up of the new river authorities, bringing the river boards into the water conservation aspect, and realising that these new authorities are obliged under the Act to work in close co-operation with the Geological Survey, I hope that a very careful tie-up will be arranged between those responsible for getting water to the sea as a result of good land drainage and those who are endeavouring to ensure that underground water resources are not depleted to a dangerous extent.
Anyone who has been obliged to study the supply of water to London will be only too aware that as a result of the enormous increase in demand the Metropolitan Water Board is given permission to reduce very considerably what should be the minimum flow over Teddington Weir. The water supply of London is a fascinating study, and obviously this is not the time to go into it in detail.
The point that I should like to stress is this. Just as I hope that all the new river authorities will work in close cooperation with this new Council, so I hope that the river authorities will work in closer co-operation with those responsible for water supply and that a completely new look will be taken at this enormous problem. I have no doubt that there is enough water for everybody who wants to go on drinking the stuff or washing in it for as far ahead as we can see. Unnecessarily dangerous situations do, however, arise entirely due to the lack of co-ordination between those who are most qualified to give the necessary advice.
One other aspect that occurs to me is the work of the old Nature Conservancy. One of its annual reports went to great length to bemoan the loss of some unique sphagnum moss as a result of better land drainage taking place in the only area where that particular sphagnum moss grew.
There is a lot of enthusiasm inside the Nature Conservancy. It comprises very dedicated men. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has many happy memories of visiting outstations of that body. It is always a happy thought when one comes to a trout stream that the Nature Conservancy never extracts the trout but cooks a kipper instead, and that if it hears a grouse cackling across the heather the Nature Conservancy does not shoot the grouse but uses instead tinned ham or something of that sort. Obviously, these are dedicated men and they have an immensely important part to play in the preservation of many of the things which, we hope, will go on for posterity.
Nevertheless, it is important that a balance should be kept carefully between the work of the Agricultural Research Council and that of the Nature Con-

servancy.There has tended to be a sort of aloofness in the minds of too many people working for the Nature Conservancy who imagine that the Agricultural Research Council is merely an enemy. This is wrong. We want to see better co-operation on that front.
The Nature Conservancy, however, gets up to some strange exercises. I understand that one is at present taking place on the Island of Rhum. There, a professor who is expert in the behaviour and the characteristics of mice is making an immensely important study on the future of red deer. These extraordinary things happen, and here we have the National Trust for Scotland having passed over to the Red Deer Authority a great deal of responsibility for looking after Kintail, which was given to the National Trust for Scotland.
The people who are doing this sort of work are knowledgeable in their own field, but, perhaps, they are not particularly well versed in deciding what fauna should be encouraged to remain at various altitudes on the west coast of Scotland and the Highlands. These are the sort of problems which all too often lead to local misunderstandings and disputes, which could well have been avoided if only there was a better understanding of the local problems before the experts moved in.
I hope that the Secretary of State will not imagine that I wish in any way to detract from the importance which I attach to the creation of the new Council, because I am sure that it is tremendously important, and I hope that the spirit of co-operation will pervade throughout all its branches.

Mr. M. Stewart: I am grateful for the welcome which both the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) and the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) have given to the new Council, which will have most interesting and important work to do. The list of its functions and sciences will be the same as that to which the hon. Member for Eastleigh referred, with the exception of the soil surveys, which will come within the scope of the Agricultural Research Council. It will, I think, be realised that as between the boundaries of any of the councils, there will always be some activities in which there is a


very fine balance of argument as to whether an activity is better with one council or with another. That was so in the case of the soil surveys. We took the view that on the whole the balance of advantage was that it should be in the field of responsibility of the Agricultural Research Council.
The concept of the four councils is that they are groups of subjects. That answers the questions of the hon. Member for Eastleigh concerning international activities and research grants. Each council pursues those activities in the field that belongs to it. The Science Research Council is not a sort of general receiver of all international contacts.
The hon. Member asked also whether we have enough seismologists. Frankly, I shall not answer that one across the board without further consideration. However, I take the point made by the hon. Member that if, as we all hope, we are able to make further progress in disarmament associations, that will mean that mankind will be calling more upon this branch of knowledge.
The hon. Member asked me particularly about the Ordnance Survey. That remains, not exactly on its own, but unaffected by the rearrangements which are being made. It has, of course, close connections with the Geological Survey, which is being brought within the range of the Council. That will be, in effect, the channel through which the Ordnance Survey will be in contact with the activities of the Natural Environment Research Council. The subject of oceanography can, perhaps, be left to be discussed on the subsequent Amendment.
I therefore turn with pleasure to the subjects of water and the Nature Conservancy, which were so entertainingly developed by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely. With regard to water, although we are getting a little away from the Bill, responsibility for it at present remains with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but the future of that has still to be considered. That is merely the answer at the present time.
When one speaks, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely did, of co-operation between the Council and the local authorities on matters concerning water, it must be remembered that this is a

research council and not an executive body. What one must really ask for is that all the bodies—central government, local government and anyone else—which have executive responsibilities concerning water shall make use of the knowledge which, we expect, will emerge from the work of the Council. That is the real nature of the relationship between them.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely drew a moving picture of the Nature Conservancy eating the simpler foods so as not to deprive mankind of more exotic forms of life. If that is really true, it seems to me to be admirable and praiseworthy. More generally, it is important that whenever we propose to do anything that hacks the earth's surface about for obvious human reasons—to provide drainage, water supply, places for people to live, and so on—it is useful to have somebody who gets up and says, "Before you do this, look at what you may be destroying and decide whether it is worth while." It might in the end be decided that the right thing to do is to go ahead with the drainage even if the rare moss suffers, but it is important that before the decision is made, people should know what the cost will be. In so far as the Nature Conservancy helps to do that task for us, it is clearly a most valuable organisation.
I have covered most, if not quite all, of the points that were raised and I hope that the hon. Member for Eastleigh will now be willing to let the Council remain part of the Bill.

Mr. David Price: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. I am again unapologetic for having used this method of facilitating discussion, because I do not believe that if we had incorporated all these matters in the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", we would have had as full and complete a reply from the Secretary of State as he has given us. With those remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 14, after "body" to insert:
including the Work Study Research Council as defined in subsection (3A) of this section".

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Grant-Ferris): I would point out to the Committee that I think it would meet their convenience if we take with this Amendment the hon. Member's Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 13, at end insert:
(3A) The Work Study Research Council shall be a body established wholly or mainly for objects consisting of or comprised in the following, namely, the carrying out of research into the application of technologies, techniques, sciences and scientific methods in the advancement of the efficiency, productivity and satisfaction of and in human work, and the ways, means, methods, operation and management of human work, and the operation and handling of machines, equipment, materials and capital resources in relation to human work; and the facilitating, encouragement and support of such research as aforesaid by other bodies and persons and of instruction in the subjects related to the Council's activities and the dissemination of knowledge thereon.

Mr. Page: I am much obliged, Mr. Grant-Ferris. The Amendment I moved is a paving Amendment to Amendment No. 5.
The Amendments seek to introduce into the Bill a specific mention of the research council for the sciences and technologies relating to human work under the brief title of the Work Study Research Council. The objects are defined in Amendment No. 5, which I may paraphrase in this way—carrying out research into the efficiency, productivity and satisfaction of and in human work and the management of human work and the operation of the capital resources relating to human work.
I should explain, in case the Secretary of State criticises the form or the position of these Amendments, that they find their way into paragraph (c) of subsection (1)—the paragraph, if I may say so, of also-rans—merely because the Money Resolution precluded them from a place with the two favourites of paragraph (b) which we have been discussing on previous Amendments. They come into paragraph (c), which is the one which provides for the other bodies to be established for purposes connected with scientific research. Scientific research is, of course, defined in Clause 6 as
research and development in any of the sciences (including the social sciences) or in technology.
That definition would cover research and development into the science of management, operational science, what I call the sciences and technologies of human work.

These are the sciences and technologies upon which productivity depends, and at least one of the ultimate objects of this Bill must be the application of research so as to better, improve and increase productivity.
I recollect that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, in the debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech, expressed the hope that industry would seek more the advice of management consultants, and we wished at the time that he would develop that theme a little further and refer not to just one category of practitioner in the field of operational science. Perhaps he did intend to refer to the whole field of work study. If he did, I am sure he would agree that little could be more valuable at the present time than the establishment of a council for research into that field, the Work Study Research Council, which is here proposed in these Amendments.
The Committee will forgive me for this platitude, but the only basic economic resource available to the human race is human work. Even the land and the vegetable and mineral products of the land are useless economic resources without human work upon them, and the first necessity of productivity, therefore, is the efficient use of human work, and efficiency in that use is the purpose and object of management, and management, to be itself efficient, must apply scientific methods; in short, it must become a technology.
In order to use the methods of science, management needs the facts and the critical examination of the facts. Indeed, work study is the raw material of the science of management. It produces and criticises the facts on which management plans and operates. Work study is the combination of methods study and work measurement. Work measurement determines how long an activity should take. Methods study determines the most efficient means of carrying out an activity in a given set of circumstances. In each case the determination is reached by, first, scientific recording, and critical examination.
I think that from that it is quite obvious that work study is a very clear and definite technology at the present time—the combination of methods study and work measurement—and it is so


advanced in experience now that it requires a volume of knowledge for its application. The works study practitioner is no longer merely a man with a stop-watch; he requires knowledge of organisation, methods of operational research, of ergonomics, the base science of the human being, of anatomy and of emotions, and he requires a knowledge of cybernetics, the communication and control of man and machine. He needs to know how to apply that knowledge to productive planning, plant layout, material handling, production control, operational analysis, cost standards, production incentives, and so on. It is all very well, as the Bill does, to set up a research council for research and development in agriculture, medicine, science, natural enviroment. These are secondary resources as compared with the science which deals directly with the basic resource, human work. That is the science or technology of work study. Therefore, in Clause 1(1,c) I hope that we shall soon see that technology recognised by a research council.
I hope the Committee will forgive me for this lecture on work study, but perhaps it is explained if I declare my interest in this up to recently, as having been the general secretary of a professional body of those qualified in work study and of those training to become work study practitioners. Work study practitioners would be the first to recognise and admit the need for research into their particular technology.
Work study is a young science; it is a young technology. It made its first impact at the time of the post-war Labour Government. It was the Anglo-American industrial exchange visits which brought home first to us in this country that we had scientific knowledge, we had skilled ability, but lacked the inclination to critical examination of our methods, and it was directly from those visits that between 1945 and 1948 a few enthusiasts, constructive enthusiasts, formed groups, under several different names, to learn and to apply the technique of work study and to set the standards of knowledge and experience and integrity for those practising work study.
Two major institutes emerged from those several bodies and worked side by side for many years, the Institute of Work

Study and the Institute of Incorporated Work Study Practitioners. I am now pleased to say that on 1st January this year these two bodies merged into one institute, the Institute of Work Study Practitioners, in which there are now 2,500 qualified practitioners and some 4,000 students and graduates. Work study practioners will in future speak with one voice, and have one improved syllabus of training, and one discipline. I hope the Secretary of State and the Minister of Technology will heed that voice and give this new institute their blessing and active encouragement and assistance by research into the proper training and education of these technologists.
The contribution which work study can make to the productivity of this country is really immense. We are not talking about tens of millions of £s. The figure is well over £100 million, and I am not exaggerating, as I shall show in a moment. Work study is responsible for 0·5 per cent. of the annual increase in our gross national product, and when one is thinking of a gross national product of £25,000 million, one is talking about work study being responsible for an increase of well over £100 million of productivity a year.
Right hon. and hon. Members no doubt read the magazine "Target" which is issued monthly by the British Productivity Council. I have cut out of the last two issues of that magazine eight or ten examples of the success of work study teams. In every case the figures show an increase of between 40 and 70 per cent. in productivity per annum produced by work study teams. Many local authorities are quoted as examples of what has been done, Lanarkshire being the famous one. Lanarkshire has a population of 300,000. Consultants carried out an organisation and methods study of Lanarkshire, and saved the ratepayers £150,000 a year.
It is important to remember that 80 per cent. of the manufacturing firms in Britain have fewer than 100 employees. These small firms have no resources for research into their methods of work. Perhaps it is regrettable that our production is so divided, but it is a fact, and it is particularly that type of firm which would benefit from research into work study. Their very existence is an indestructible argument for a Work Study Research Council.
Fairly recently a statistical research entitled "The Productivity of Management Consultants" was carried out by a Mr. J. Johnston of the Department of Economics at the University of Manchester. It was published in the journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A General in 1963, Part 2 at page 237. The conclusion is quite astonishing.
Mr. Johnston took 300 assignments carried out by the four largest firms of management consultants. They carry out 80 per cent. of the United Kingdom management consultant work. In those 300 assignments he found that the average productivity improvement was more than 50 per cent. He then statistically spread that productivity achieved over the manufacturing industries and showed that the 1,125 men who had carried out this activity had increased productivity by 0·7 per cent. per annum. Spreading it statistically over workers in manufacturing, public utilities, and distributive trades, the increase was 0·5 per cent. productivity per annum. At that time the annual increase was not much more than 2 per cent., so that 1,125 men experienced in work study were responsible for one quarter of the national annual productivity increase at that time. What could have been produced by training ten times more men in work study?
7.45 p.m.
Further research into work study methods would be rewarding. It might be asked what is there further to research in this? It might be said: All one does in work study is to examine the job, time it, and then apply common sense to show how it can be done in less time, or at less cost, or with less effort. But that simple approach disregards the fact that the work study practitioner is dealing with men and women at work. He has to understand human emotions, as well as human movements, and research is needed into the methods of overcoming the resistance of the human being to change, and resentment against change, whether it comes from the executives or from the trade unionists.
The General Council of the T.U.C. has done much to break down suspicion among workers against work study. Production memoranda issued by the T.U.C. for its training courses now include work study subjects, and the T.U.C. is repre-

sented on work study committees and commissions, but we cannot kid ourselves that this resistance is not still there. There is the human resistance to change when one endeavours to apply improved methods to work, and here is one subject on which there could be much further research. There could be research on how to overcome that obstacle in particular cases.
That is only one particular aspect of the vast area in which research is possible, is practical, and is essential, and I hope that the Government will give serious thought to using subsection 1(c) of this Clause to set up a research council for the science of the efficiency of human work, the technology of work study. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to accept the Amendment.

Mr. John H. Osborn: The Amendment intrigues me because my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has raised a subject which covers many sciences, and the application of science, social science, and the problems of management in industry. I support my hon. Friend's view that it is most important that we should have a better understanding of the efficient use of manpower in industry.
There are several justifications for my commenting on this Amendment. First, at one stage in my life I had a stop-watch in my hand—that was more than 20 years ago—and I carried out a time and motion study. I learned a lot by studying simple processes, and I believe that I submitted a report which at that time resulted in a great advance in productivity in one particular department. Subsequently, I have been active in management and, in particular, in production control and I have found that the best conceived plans of managers, even after consultation with those on the shop floor, are frustrated because there are factors which managers have not properly considered.
In a progressive industrial organisation, method study, and cybernetics, are essential, and I agree that it is an important part of management. There is a need for the co-ordination of research activities in this field, and I am glad to learn of the merger to which my hon. Friend referred. Most of the


research associations—and particularly the Production Engineering Research Association—have been involved in time and motion studies for many years, but if this science is to be applied it must be sold to operatives on the shop floor. They will have to change and improve their techniques, and this is an immense problem which faces management, particularly the supervisors on the shop floor.
Where would this science, which concerns management method, fit in to the pattern of the Bill? Should it come under the Department of Education and Science? I wonder whether it should not come under the Ministry of Technology. I am grateful for the chart that was prepared and published in The Guardian on the 12th of this month, attempting to outline what we are now discussing. I know that the lawyers in the House will say that we are talking about an Amendment of this Clause, and I agree, but if we could get away from some of the legal language that besets us and look at charts more often we might be forced to the conclusion that this form of activity would be better carried out under the Ministry of Technology.
This brings me to another important aspect of the question—scientific management. This, together with work study, involves flow charts, management charts, jobs specifications, and the question of who is responsible to whom, and for what. Many scientists, managers and others are very interested in the Bill. Many of them would welcome its presentation in the form of a chart such as that which the Minister of Economic Affairs has produced in his bulletin, outlining which council is responsible for which section of the new Ministry that is being formed. People could appreciate the set-up if they saw it in chart form rather than in the form of the written word. They would then properly understand exactly what we are now discussing.
If the Minister agreed to accept the Amendment it might well be the task of the persons appointed to this research council to put into comprehensive language, and in chart form, the exact effect of the Bill when it comes into operation.
In conclusion, this is an important subject, and I hope that the Minister will

tell us how best work study can fit into the activities which will be set in motion when the Bill comes into effect.

Mr. M. Stewart: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I will take him up on one point. He referred to the four named councils as the favourites and to the others as the "also-rans". It is important not to think of them in those terms, but, if I may pursue the horse-racing metaphor, we could draw a line under paragraph (a) and write the words "The above have arrived". Paragraph (b) refers to those that are plainly on their way, and paragraph (c) to those that may or may not arrive in future. We know that some will arrive, but we do not yet know which, or in what form.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Are any of them under starter's orders?

Mr. Stewart: I shall be taking up that point in what I have to say. It is with an attempt to insert words in paragraph (c) that we are now concerned. I do not think that anyone would doubt the importance of the subject referred to in the Amendment. We all listened with great interest to the informed account which the hon. Member for Crosby gave, but I do not think that he needs to convince us of its importance. The nation is becoming very much aware of it.
I put it to the hon. Member that the right way to give this subject its proper place is probably not by creating a separate research council for this branch of study alone. As he said, it is a science which is concerned with human beings. I believe that its proper place will be in a council concerned with the social services. In any case, it would not be wise to make a decision at this point to have a separate council for this subject while we are still awaiting the report of the Heyworth Committee on Social Sciences. I must not prejudge the issue, but it may well be that in the light of that report it will be found sensible to use the powers under paragraph (c) to create a new research council concerned with the social sciences.
I believe—and this is the answer to the question of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) —that it should be part of the activities


of a social sciences council, such as could be created under paragraph (c), because it will be apparent that the councils are not concerned each with a single subject; it is of their nature that they are concerned with large groups of related subjects. A good deal of their value lies in that fact. At the outset of our discussion the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) warned us against the danger of following the principle of "Buggins's turn" in our priorities. If we had a large number of councils, each concerned with one subject, the danger of our doing that would be a good deal greater.
There is another very practical point to consider, namely, the manning of these councils. If we are to have a considerable number of separate bodies, each dealing with a rather narrow range of subjects, we shall have real difficulty in getting men of the kind we want to man a lot of these councils, unless we appoint the same men for a good many of them. We would then find that they would be meeting at one time and in one place to discuss one subject and at another time and place to discuss another subject only to find that the two subjects were very closely related, and that they should be dealt with by one body and not by several.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it not a reflection of that that those who are senior and distinguished tend to be chosen for such posts, and that not so much opportunity is given to those who are less senior but nonetheless have a contribution to make?

Mr. Stewart: I certainly take that point. That is the danger in all human institutions. I often felt it myself when I was younger. It seemed to operate in many fields. It is a very serious point, but it is not related to what we are discussing. I think that my hon. Friend is arguing that we could have many more councils if we drew on younger people. But we would still have to consider whether we were making the best use of their abilities.
The other point certainly remains; it will be much more difficult to obtain a proper judgment of priorities if we move towards a pattern of one subject for one council rather than of one group

of subjects for one council, partly because in some branches of knowledge we do not yet know how far study in one subject will promote thought and discovery in another. That is another reason for keeping to the principle of one council for one group of subjects.
Like the hon. Member for Hallam, I studied the chart in The Guardian. I will consider whether we could further add to knowledge by producing another chart. As I remember it, there were two lines that should have been drawn on that chart more emphatically, namely, the line of communication between my Department and that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, and, similarly, the line between the Advisory Council on Science and the Advisory Council on Technology. But the right place for the kind of study with which the hon. Member for Crosby is concerned is in this part of the Bill rather than in the part dealing with technology, because we are considering research into this branch of knowledge.
I ask the hon. Member to take the view that probably the proper way to deal with this subject is to group it with other human sciences rather than to have it dealt with by a newly-created council.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not wish to pursue the question of the composition of the Council, but there is one point which arises. If the Heyworth Committee recommended a Social Sciences Council many of us would wish it to have power of itself to give contracts to universities to obtain the sort of objectives suggested by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). This would be one way in which his objectives might be obtained.

Mr. Graham Page: I am encouraged by the sympathetic response which at the least the objective of this Amendment has received from the Minister. I am not in any way wedded to the Amendment's method of dealing with this matter. It may well be that the right course, as the right hon. Gentleman says, would be to bring it within a council which deals with other matters so that we have one council for one group of subjects. Because of the sympathetic response that the Amendment has received, I should like to ask leave to withdraw it.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: Before the Committee accepts the plea of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), I wish to support the Minister on an entirely different ground. If I am critical, I hope that I shall not be shot at from various quarters.
I believe that we ought to accept what the Minister has said because this technology, eruditely explained by the hon. Member for Crosby, is so ephemeral. I have had experience of work study organisation and methods over many years and I declare my interest. As chairman of a hospital management committee in the Greater London area I have been compelled to have these practitioners to advise on how to conserve labour and reduce expenditure in the hospital budget. Over a period of 12 years none of the much-vaunted suggestions of the practitioners resulted in a single penny being saved.
The hospital management committee is dealing at present with a very serious situation which arose after one of these teams had said that we must install certain machinery which would reduce the amount of labour necessary. This installation resulted in an additional labour charge of £3,000 a year which the committee is trying to recover from the regional board, and the regional board is trying to recover from the Ministry. I agree with the Minister that this pseudo-science, or technology, or whatever it is, which the hon. Gentleman said was introduced as a result of Anglo-American productivity committees immediately after the war, has been blown sky-high in America, and so we should return to what is an ordinary function of management.
I hope that this will all be buried within the scheme suggested by the Minister and that we may proceed to look for real sciences and real technology.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 14, after "body", to insert:
including the Space Research Council as defined in subsection (3B) of this section".

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): With this Amendment I think that it would be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 6 and 10.

Mr. Griffiths: The definition referred to in the Amendment appears in Amendment No. 6 and it might be convenient if I read the main points in it:
The Space Research Council shall be a body established wholly … for … the study of and research into upper atmosphere physics, the properties of outer space, propulsion, satellites and outer space probes, space telecommunications, the facilitating and support of such research by other bodies or persons, instruction in subjects relating to the Council's activities, the dissemination of knowledge in the space sciences, and the encouragement of public interest in space.
The other Amendment is consequential.
Our purpose in moving this Amendment is threefold. First, it is an attempt to persuade the Government to recognise the importance of space research as one of the advanced dimensions of contemporary science and technology. There is, I think, a vast new world opening up before us in respect of knowledge and of experience. It seems to me essential that we should have some central co-ordinating body in this country which could find out what is going on, particularly in the United States and in the Soviet Union, and which could advise the Government on the part that this country could afford to play in this great new world.
The second purpose of the Amendment is consequential on the first. It is to bring together under one roof the various space activities in which this country is already engaged. There is a very great deal of valuable work in space research already being done in Great Britain. In some respects I think that it could be better co-ordinated. At present, it is sometimes split into separate pockets so that the nation does not always get the full benefit from the many diverse efforts which we are making.
Thirdly, the Amendment seeks to focus public attention on the new fields of space science particularly on the application of the "spin-off," or "fall-out" as the Americans say, of this new research in our industrial technology. There have been many exaggerated pictures painted of the "fall-out" of the American space research. Expressions like "space gold" have been thrown around all too easily, but I hope that I shall be able to show that there are many spheres of space research from which British industry could benefit enormously, and indeed that there is a


danger that should we fail to engage ourselves in this new dimension of science our industry could well suffer as a consequence.
I wish to draw attention to some of the astonishing things which are going on in space research and exploration at the present time and take as an example the voyage into outer space of the Mariner IV space craft. This craft is about the size of a Mini-Minor, although it does not weigh quite so much. It has four arms, like a windmill. It was fired into space on 28th November at a speed of several thousands of miles an hour. When it arrives—as it now seems certain that it will—in the Martian atmosphere the Americans will be able to photograph the surface of Mars and transmit photographs back to earth. Their scientists will be able to do a good deal of work on testing the Martian atmosphere and the chemistry of the planet, and so on.
I do not think I need point out the advantages that this knowledge will give to American astronauts and cosmologists. I am not concerned with their further plans for the exploration of outer space. I do not know whether they are feasible or not. I wish the Committee to consider this probe of Mars as an enormous technological achievement by the United States. When we recognise that this space craft has more than 120,000 separate components built into it, and is being guided to its destination at a distance from the earth of 350 million miles, we appreciate that it is a tremendous technological achievement. The best way to illustrate it is by describing the launching and directive of this space probe.
It was sent into orbit in November by a rocket something approximating the size of Nelson's Column from the command post at Cape Kennedy in Florida. The scientists on the ground calculated the precise moment when earth and Mars would be in the right combination with one another so that the space craft would be most likely to reach its destination.
It was sent into what is known as a "parking" orbit, about 120 miles from earth. It remained there until the scientists on the ground below were certain that they could press a further button, fire another rocket and send the craft off

on its next stage to Mars. It was at that point that the problem started because the space craft directs itself by having what is known as a "sensor", which is able to pick up the light or signals from the many stars on its course.
In the command centre below the quality of the light and its intensity picked up by the "sensor" from the many stars around was analysed. If the analysis showed that it was a star on which the space craft needed to be locked to make its journey to Mars, a signal was sent permitting it to be so locked. I apologise for this highly technical explanation, but I assure hon. Members that it is relevant to the issue.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: It sounds like a T.V. programme.

Mr. Griffiths: The space craft needed to lock on to the star Canopus. This is a first magnitude star and the quality of light would direct the space craft in the right direction. Like most infernal machines—and as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) points out, this does sound like a T.V. programme or like science fiction—it went wrong. It originally picked up a star of third magnitude, Markab, changed course and then locked on to another star, Alderanin, and then it changed to the star, Regulus. Down below in the space control room the scientists were considerably alarmed when the computer showed that it had got on to the wrong star. Finally, however—.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Member must now return to the subject of the Amendment which he is proposing.

Mr. Griffiths: I appreciate that I have strayed several light years away from the subject.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Further to my hon. Friend's point of order, even though his remarks may not strictly be in order they are extremely interesting.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of order, as the hon. Baronet knows.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Griffiths: I am attempting to illustrate that in this space probe there is achieved a degree of technological exactness, precision and refinement of


enormous importance, as I will show, in industrial application.
When the space craft locked on to the correct star—and this happened quite suddenly—it was a moment almost as exciting to those in the control room on the ground below as when Archimedes made his discovery. The pen on the graph typed on the machine the right combination of figures and Mr. Tom Bilbo, the scientist in charge, shouted to his friends "Canopus"—and they knew that the space craft was on its way.
I hope that this serves to illustrate something of the immense sophistication of this new space industry. Here they were with an instrument that was more than 1 million miles away and which they needed to turn on to its right course so that it would go precisely to its far-off destination, a destination 350 million miles away. By any measure, we should be able to see from this the enormous benefits that the American aerospace industry is deriving from this type of technology.
I do not for a moment suggest that we in this country should attempt to emulate or match the Americans in this matter. We could not possibly afford to do so and it may well be that it is not even necessary. The Americans have in their own programme a great deal of waste and extravagance, but because we cannot begin to match their effort, this is no reason for doing as little as I am afraid we are doing.
Although I do not wish in any way to detract from the extremely valuable work that is being done in this country, notably by the Science Research Council and the Ministry of Aviation, as well as by private industry, the basic truth remains that we have so far largely left space research to others. We are in danger of missing the bus—perhaps I should say the space craft—because the basic question is not whether Britain can afford to take her part in space research but, far more important, are we aware of our future as a nation if we contract out of it?
To begin with, we should lose many of our best scientists. I have never accepted that there was a brain drain of the size or kind hon. Gentlemen opposite suggested when they were in opposition. But having spoken with many young

scientists at our universities I am convinced that they are attracted—indeed, impelled—by the exciting new possibilities that are being opened up by American research into space. I am afraid that we will lose many of them if we do not as a nation make a start in tackling space research.
Further, I believe that there is the danger that if we were to contract out of space British science and technology, as well as British industry, would be frozen out of some of the new opportunities which are arising from space research. We do not want to find ourselves facing a future in which the Americans and the Russians make all the sophisticated new products, processes and methods while we in Britain are left making what are metaphorically called the boots and barbed wire.
To give an example, we all know what space telecommunications is, for all who watched the Olympic Games in Tokyo on television here know that we received those pictures by courtesy of the American satellite which was hovering over the Pacific. It will not be many years before the Americans have dozens of such satellites in orbit. When that happens, worldwide communications will be revolutionised.
We in Britain have a great deal at stake in worldwide communications. At the moment we obtain much foreign exchange from the use of British underwater cables by foreign countries. We should recognise that the whole of the old imperial telephone and telegraphic communications system is about to become obsolete. It will become obsolete when the American Telstar, or whatever other satellite system they choose to adopt, goes effectively into orbit, I believe not in a matter of decades but within months or a few years.
I can give more precision to this by pointing out that in my experience, in London, there was created not long ago a machine capable of punching tape and transmitting copy from London to New York at the rate of 700 words per minute. Previously, the maximum speed at which this could be done was 70 words per minute. This means that one can put the whole of the front page of The Times into New York in about 11 minutes overall. This is an entirely new dimension in communications. We were not


able to do that before this machine was developed—developed, I am sorry to say, by the Americans and not by ourselves.
I mention this machine to show that at that speed one can justify the expense of renting time on Telstar. At the moment one cannot afford to rent Tel-star time because it is too expensive. This shows that with modern methods the cost involved in using new machinery can be justified. It demonstrates that American industry is gearing itself to making use of the techniques that are arising from space research. It is not a remote prospect, but a fact of today.
I suggest to the Minister that he should look into the intentions of the previous Government to buy into the American commercial satellite system which is about to come into operation and in which I understand we have either bought or taken an option to buy a certain number of shares. I do not know whether we have got them yet. If we have, we have done very well because they have had a tremendous boom on the New York Stock Exchange. But is it enough for us simply to have bought a rather small number of shares in this American system? Ought we not to do more? I would hope that a British Space Council would consider urgently how this country should play a bigger and more enthusiastic part in space telecommunication. There is no field in which it is more important that our country should take an important rôle.
I should like to turn to some of the industrial applications of the new space technology and to mention some of the applications to consumer goods which are almost the most interesting because they are the things that ordinary people use. No one could justify the enormous expense of the American programme in terms of what it has so far produced to the American housewife, but it is worth mentioning that in such humble matters as cooking pots the American housewife is able to put in ice-cold water cooking pots which are absolutely red hot without the slightest possibility of their cracking. The reason is that the Americans needed new ceramics for the nose cones of rockets and these new ceramics have been applied to this basic consumer industry.
In the matter of room heating, in the roofs of houses in California there is the prospect of using miniaturised solar batteries which are installed in satellites to take the energy they need from the sun. If these are installed in houses in California so that they release the heat at night or in the winter they will provide warmth for those who live there at virtually no expense beyond the cost of installation. I would mention a more intimate matter in my own case. We were laying some concrete in a piggery and the concrete mixer broke and it could not be welded. Apparently nothing could be done, but my wife came out of the house with a missile glue which we had got when we visited California. It was an epoxy glue not then manufactured in this country or in Europe. It was applied to the concrete mixer and it created a weld which could not have been achieved in any other way.
These are some of the very ordinary examples of the way in which this new technology is producing methods which are important to industry. I would mention one or two more in the field of heavy industry, and particularly metallurgy. The most important is concerned with cutting and forming metals and especially the new hard metals which are needed in industry today. There is a plasma are torch which uses an ionised gas and has a cutting edge at a temperature of 30,000 degrees. It can work within tolerances of 0·002 inches. This is a method which is being applied in American industry but which we do not have in this country.
There is a magnetic pulse forming machine, a method of forming and shaping great slabs of metal in an intense magnetic field which can persuade even the toughest metals to take on a new shape in a fraction of a second. I do not believe that we have such a method in this country. Even the American steel industry has benefited from the products of space research. There is a whole new infra-red technology which may eventually replace radar. It is capable of telling us the internal temperature map of a piece of steel moving through a belt at 80 m.p.h.
I have said enough and perhaps more than enough to illustrate that there is a fall-out or a spin-off from new research which the Americans are doing in space


and which has direct applications that matter both to ordinary people and to a nation seeking to be competitively efficient in the modern world.
As a final illustration I would mention the field of medicine. This is perhaps where space research in America has so far made the most remarkable contribution. The sophistication of electronic instruments in the space probe has made it possible for medical researchers to measure electrical impulses in the human body which can tell us much more about the blood flow and body temperature than we have ever known before. This is a direct medical consequence of the space probe.
Then there are the medical advances which have resulted from the preparation of astronauts for space flights. All these are not H. G. Wellsian fantasies but are going on in America today. Tiny instruments attached to astronauts have enabled great advances to be made in the measurement of pulse rates and breathing rates and space suits have been adapted to enable victims of a heart attack to recover more rapidly than otherwise they would do.
There is also the whole field of creating new foods which can be used by astronauts on the journey. There are the small oxygen-forming algae which create the bulk that one can eat on the way, and there is a new direct derivative of a hydrazine propellent which is applied in the treatment of tuberculosis and even certain mental illnesses. These developments have had even an effect in dentistry, because American dentists are now able to use very tiny bearing points which revolve on the teeth at the rate of 250,000 revolutions per minute and therefore achieve a much more effective boring at a much greater speed than anything of which we have hitherto heard. Lest hon. Members fear that it is rather dangerous for a dentist to do things in one's mouth at speeds of 250,000 revolutions I should add that the United States programme has made it possible to achieve a clearer and more certain image of the tooth under attack by a new technique devised for the space industry of a glass-fibre device placed in the mouth which gives a television picture of what is going on.
I have said enough to demonstrate that a whole new range of processes, methods and materials is being made

available to American industry and I do not think it necessary to emphasise that we in Britain as a manufacturing and exporting nation cannot afford to be left out of this advanced technology. The question, therefore, is how best we can stay abreast of this modern advanced technology and in particular of space technology at a price that we can afford. The Amendment is designed modestly to carry us some small way along this road.
The Space Research Council's first duty would be not to involve itself in firing rockets or building "hardware", but simply to find out, on behalf of our scientists, what is going on. We need to know what the Americans are doing and, if possible, what the Russians are doing. The Council would be able to collect and to collate the information about their programmes and to select from that information those parts of space technology which we in this country could afford to tackle to the maximum benefit to ourselves.
The Council would seek to bring together under one roof the various space activities on which we are already engaged, the valuable work of the Ministry of Aviation and the British aero-space industries, the space science activities of the Science Research Council, the work of the British governmental agencies which are engaged with our allies in the E.L.D.O. and E.S.R.O. programmes, which, I understand, are now running into some financial difficulty, and perhaps the activities of the Post Office space telecomunications departments which have done so much useful work in conjunction with the Americans.
I emphasise that the purpose of this Space Research Council is primarily for study. Its job would be to discover what is going on elsewhere and to see to it that we make our choice of which areas we should play our part in, telecommunications, obviously, being one of the most important.
8.30 p.m.
The Council would work in close conjunction with British industry and, above all, with the universities. Indeed, if it is to succeed, one of its most crucial functions would be to encourage and, perhaps, even to finance space science research in one of our great universities. It is


enormously to the credit of the Americans that, on the back of the United States space industry, there has grown a great deal of intellectual industry. I believe that in this country there is room for such a council to encourage in one of out great universities, or perhaps in more than one, space science research, both pure and applied.
The Amendment is designed further to encourage and promote public interest in space. I have seen a good deal of this in the United States and, although some of the interest created has some extreme or even laughable ramifications, the fact is that among American youth there is an incandescent enthusiasm for this new experience into which their nation is moving. I believe that there are many people in Britain, particularly among the young, who, as they read of American and Russian advances, ask themselves, "Why do not we get cracking here in Britain?" There is an impatience, especially among the young. They want to see our country joining in. I am sure that they are right to feel this, and I am certain also that they would be prepared, if asked, to make some sacrifice in this generation in order that the next generation of our people should not be left out of this new dimension.
I know that there are arguments that we cannot afford it, that it is a waste of money, and that it would spread our scientific manpower far too thinly. I appreciate the problem of selection and the problem of priorities about which one of my hon. Friends spoke earlier and on which the Minister agreed. But there is one categorical imperative applying in this case, namely, that man is crossing a new technological frontier, entering upon a brand new experience. He is setting out on a new adventure, and we know not where it will lead. It is an adventure which holds out vast promise in industry, in technology and in many other ways.
I put my case to the Minister of behalf of the many scientists in this country who want to see us get "cracking", on behalf of the many industrialists who sense the prospect of industrial advantages from space research and study, and, above all, on behalf of the thousands, perhaps millions, of young people who would like to see our country moving in space and who know that their future

and their children's future is bound up with it.
I urge the Government to consider this Amendment sympathetically so that the Space Research Council could find out what is going on, could advise the Government which aspects of this new field of research we should concentrate upon and which we could afford to tackle, and, also, so that we could demonstrate that Britain will not be left out of this new and exciting adventure which, I believe, is one of the great revolutions of our time.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: I hope that the Secretary of State will give to this Amendment the same sort of reply that he gave to the previous one, with a little more warmth. Although I appreciate the background from which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) speaks, I cannot help feeling that he has got a number of arguments wrong. It is very difficult to see how a "poor man's" space programme in this country could do anything to keep our best people here instead of emigrating to the United States.
If a man is determined to be the "first-footer" on Mars, or is completely absorbed in the problems of stellar navigation, he will go to the States. He will not stay here among the muddle of second-rate projects. If he wants to get this dimension of excitement in this country—and, I agree, it is a perfectly legitimate and honourable thing to encourage—the role for Britain is one in an Atlantic space effort, or possibly even a world space effort. There was a suggestion made of co-operation between Russia and America on the space programme. Surely, this will have precisely the opposite effect to that which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has advocated.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I should like to make it clear that in no way was I proposing a national space programme that would send this country rushing off into firing rockets and the rest of it. I am suggesting only that we study the programmes of other people and seek, within those programmes, to find out where we can fit in. I should be the first to welcome any participation with the Americans, with the Europeans and with everybody else.

Dr. Bray: I think that this is hardly consistent with keeping our best brains in this country and encouraging this line of development here. What we do we must do well, and our problem is one of selection in our own national area. The hon. Member points to the "fall-out" or "spin-off" from the American space programme. I am sure that American housewives do not want to put red-hot saucepans into water too often, at least I hope not. I may have to do it, but I am sure that they do not.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member might make the point that they are being made very near his own constituency in this country.

Dr. Bray: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for this point. Indeed, I welcome this. I think that our work on epoxy resins would be far more effectively carried out as a part of our building research programme rather than as part of a space research programme, where its application would be extremely uncertain and tenuous. Surely, if we have someone seeking some excitement in the creation of entirely new ideas and ways of looking at things—which is the effect of a space programme—we should seek to bring this kind of man into the traditional, rather dead-and alive situation in this country, where he would have an entirely new point of view to offer.
It would undoubtedly mean a very considerable readjustment. People would have their noses put out of joint. If, for example, the effort which we are putting into the TSR2 programme were to be put instead into the London docks and London transport and one or two other places. there would be many people in positions of great eminence—some of them on the Front Bench opposite—who would find that their way of looking at things was completely obsolete.
What space does is enable this idea to develop where it will not hurt anyone or interpose any social change or put any noses out of joint. What we want today in this country is to go for the more difficult task of welcoming the social adjustment which goes with rapid technological change, developing these ideas in our own homeland, in the domestic economy, in the economy of

developing nations, and thus making a far greater contribution to the wealth and well-being of the world per scientist and engineer available than will ever come from the United States space programme.
I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not fair to American scientists and technologists in his report of the American view of the space programme. There are many people there who would welcome within Europe a different orientation from that in the United States. I am sure that the creation of a special Space Research Council in this country, which would be deliberately aimed at concentrating attention and glamour on this field rather than on others, would be a great mistake.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: What is the hon. Member's answer to my hon. Friend's point about Telstar replacing the income we get from the undersea cable?

Dr. Bray: I think that the income from the undersea cable is a relatively small proportion of our gross national product. Certainly, if we were to put effort into, say, homing devices on stars, that kind of work applied to industrial process control in this country could well open to us a world market in industrial process control, which the Americans have been unable to get, largely because they have sunk all their best technological effort into the aerospace industry. By following different lines of development we could get a far more efficient development of our world markets than by tagging along behind the Americans. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will not be over-warm in his reception of the Amendment.

Mr. Airey Neave: I have always been somewhat attracted to the idea that an organisation should be set up to deal with space research, because the situation in space research at the moment is extremely untidy. Several Ministries and Ministers are involved. The scientific side of the research and some of the technological aspects which come under the Ministry of Aviation could form part of a central body such as a Space Research Council. I am not advocating that it should go further than the examination, as the Amendment suggests, of the various aspects of space


research. The fact is that there is already a growing space research industry in this country, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), and there are wide and growing problems.
In spite of what was said by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), we are not advocating a glamorous body which would give the impression to the public that we intend to launch into a very expensive space programme. I am talking about space research, not development. I suggest that the activities of the Royal Society and the universities in this respect could be combined in those of a Space Research Council and with some of the technological aspects which at present come under the Ministry of Aviation.
Even if the Secretary of State does not do this now, I think that the time will come when he has to do it. There are many growing aspects of space research, such as the satellite communications programme, in which we are taking part and in which we ought to have had a greater part after the abandonment of Blue Streak as a military project. Indeed, I advocated that four or five years ago. The fact remains that there has been a considerable growth in this technology.
8.45 p.m.
My hon. Friend mentioned so many things that I would refer only to radio equipment and electronics. There are big markets here, both in space research and in an expansion in our domestic field as a result of what is being done by scientists who have experience of satellite communications. The industrial future of Britain is much bound up with space research. I suggest that we should give serious consideration to the idea of a central body for space research. I repeat that the position is extremely untidy at the moment. There is no Minister responsible for space research as a whole. The Postmaster-General is concerned with the operational side of telecommunications and the Minister of Aviation is concerned with technology and with the industry. A joint body of some kind on which industry was represented in this research field would have very great advantages.

Dr. David Kerr: We must all be grateful to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) for his very interesting remarks. It may not be fair to attempt to turn HANSARD into an edition of "Popular Science Monthly", but his speech was none the worse for that. I think, Sir Samuel, that when you finally ruled him out of order I could almost hear his sigh of relief at discovering that it is very much safer to be out of order here than to be out of order up there.
In fairness to my colleagues on these benches and to American scientists and technologists, I ought to say that many of the things which he ascribed to the space programme in the United States are not only nothing to do with the space programme, but have very little to do with the United States in their origin, either. I think that it would be unfair to all of us here to allow to go unrecorded some facts which by implication or omission he seems to have established. To begin with, it is quite wrong to suggest that only Americans have access to the 250,000 revolutions which he suggests occur only in the American dentist's surgery. I would point out that the London County Council, three or four years ago, introduced this sort of turbine drill for experimental use in its school clinics—and it was not something which came from America.
The hon. Member also referred to the development of hydrazine derivatives as drugs for the treatment of mental diseases. Much of the research is taking place, and has been successful, in France and Switzerland and this country, too. Besides these facts, there is the one to which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) drew our attention—namely, the saucepan which one can put in the "fridge" and then straight on the gas stove, and vice versa, if that is the corrupt way in which one conducts one's cuisine. These saucepans are available here as well. I bought one. They are expensive.
The basic weakness of the hon. Member's argument seems to lie in the fact that he sees so many of these improvements stemming from a space programme, when, in very large part, the reverse is true—that the space programme derives much of its knowledge from preceding research in other fields.
The point that the hon. Gentleman has tried to make to the Committee is that this country is, by virtue of the absence of a Space Research Council, losing the benefits of the results of research overseas, mainly in America and the Soviet Union, and he suggested that we were losing the results of research which we should be doing in this country and are not. He also referred to our losing the results of research which is being done in this country but which is not being disseminated in an appropriate way through industry and academic laboratory facilities.
I cannot accept that the points that he has made justify his contention. Also, I fail to follow him when he suggests that his arguments lead us inevitably to the idea of a Space Research Council. It seems to me that this country must recognise that our hopes now of achieving the same sophistication in space research and space activity as the Soviet Union and America are vain.
The hon. Member also argued that we should seek the results of the research of the United States and the Soviet Union so far as they are available to us. I very strongly suggest that so long as the research in those two major countries is so very much military research and only secondarily scientific research, our chances of acquiring the information are small whether we have a Space Research Council or not.
However, I accept that there is a great deal of information coming from space research and, most particularly, going to space research from other disciplines which needs to be made available. I cannot follow why this correlation and organisation of information cannot be done by the Science Research Council. I do not follow the necessity to establish a council which will be in a sense confined, if one can confine anything in outer space with this very big horizon before it.
It seems to me that the purpose which the hon. Member is seeking, and which I fully support, will be adequately served by the terms already laid down in the Bill, and I hope that when the Secretary of State deals with these points he will provide a more detailed answer than I am able to do.

Mr. Hogg: I had not intended to take part in the debate, especially as the

hour is a little late, but I wonder whether I might help the Committee by making one or two comments about some of the issues raised on the Amendment, without in any way seeking to dictate to the Secretary of State the line which he would think it proper to take upon the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) that a Space Research Council should be set up.
I think that my hon. Friend can, at any rate, rest assured that he has performed a very real service to the Committee by both giving us a most interesting and informative speech and raising in the course of our debates upon the Bill a subject of first-rate importance. Indeed, when my hon. Friend described the incandescent enthusiasm of American youth I thought I detected some original enthusiasm emanating from his own breast which was not simply a reflection of the American youth with which he has been in contact. When he finally became locked upon Alderanin and found himself in conflict with your predecessor in the Chair, Sir Barnett, I felt that he was performing a very useful service by attracting attention to the importance to this country of the issues involved.
There are two quite separate points involved in his speech. The first is the importance of this country seizing itself of modern technology in its most advanced phase and thereby not falling behind, in quite familiar industrial processes and products, those nations which have already embarked upon space research. The second issue, which seems quite distinct from the first, although they are both material to the Amendment, is whether the course which he proposes—the institution of a separate Space Research Council—is a good or a bad way of organising our scientific research; that is to say, whether it is wise, accepting his first premise, to go on to his conclusion that we should have a separate Space Research Council as distinct from the Science Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the National Environment Research Council.
I thought that my hon. Friend made his first point completely successfully. I did not share the pessimistic expressions made on the benches opposite. What I was not so satisfied about—and I hope


that I am not boring the Committee by saying so—was whether the organisational point he made was the right organisational point. In other words, is his conclusion the correct one?
I agree with the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) that my hon. Friend was a little too modest about the achievements of this country already, because it really is true that the frying pans which so entranced him are really on sale. I possess one myself. It is also true that the dental drills which he thought wonderful, with their 200,000 revolutions per minute, are used by most dentists in Harley Street as well as in L.C.C. clinics. We are not as badly off as my hon. Friend thought.
There was nothing in the very interesting information he gave us as an example of what his council would find out from the Americans and Russians which we do not know already. I think that I can say that with absolute assurance. There was nothing he mentioned that I do not know already from my own contact with the scientists whom the Secretary of State controls. All this is immensely important and interesting, but we must not think that in this country we are either ignorant of what goes on or have not the means or the knowledge.
For several years we have had a steering group on space research co-ordinated by the Royal Society and under the general authority of the Secretary of State. It performs almost exactly the functions which my hon. Friend's Space Research Council would do. I mention these things not in order to minimise the value or the importance of my hon. Friend's speech, but because I am particularly anxious that the scientific achievements and standing of this country should not be misunderstood by the public. As he generously admitted, we have undertaken a very great deal of space research.
The point to which he devoted somewhat too little attention was that he did not ask himself—nor did my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), with whose speech I largely agreed—whether there was something called space research which could be wholly differentiated from astronomy, physics and the earth sciences. What is space research? I assume that what we are doing at Jodrell Bank is space research of the most

advanced kind. It would certainly come within his proposed definition for the Space Research Council. I cannot see how it can be sensible to take Jodrell Bank, which is part of Manchester University, and separate it from the other grants given to Jodrell Bank through the other councils which the right hon. Gentleman now controls. I do not see how radio astronomy can be taken out of the university and given to a body of the kind suggested.
I do not see how the institution at Slough, which is tracking the satellites with a different set of apparatus, or the radio telescope at Cambridge, can be separated out and called space research and not allied with the general developments in science, in electronics, physics and astronomy generally. I do not see how the optical astronomy at Hurstmonceux can be organised under space research and I do not see how it can be said that space research is one thing and optical and radio astronomy another. Optical and radio astronomy are an important part of space research.
To take the other extreme and to accept at their full face value the applications of science to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the frying pans, the space suits which will help in the treatment of heart diseases, the dental drills and so on; the more their importance is argued, the more it is established that one cannot differentiate them from the general subject of scientific and industrial research. There is not one kind of metallurgy which can be organised on conventional lines, whether under the Minister of Technology, or, as I would prefer, the B.I.R.A., or, as now, the D.S.I.R., and another kind of metallurgy which could be organised under a Space Research Council. This would be a bad form of organisation and I do not feel that that part of the case has been made out.
In his earlier argument, my hon. Friend made one extremely important point, which I hope the Secretary of State will accept, and one which he may not accept with such enthusiasm, but which is none the less true. We cannot afford to be left out of these advanced technologies simply as a matter of the economic future of this country. I ventured to make this point when we were talking about the future of technology during the debate on the Address.
We cannot afford to write off these advanced projects simply as prestige projects, because the prestige project of the present is the industrial technology of the future. When we invest our money, as we shall have to invest our money, being a relatively poor country, in bits of communication satellites, or space research by means of the European Space Research Organisation, E.S.R.O., or the European Launcher Development Organisation, E.L.D.O., or shared satellites with the United States, which are already agreed and which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pursue, we are really investing our money in our industrial future. I hope, therefore, that we shall hear nothing from the Government about mere prestige products.
9.0 p.m.
I draw this conclusion from what my hon. Friend said. It is not the moral which he drew, but I should like the Secretary of State to consider it. I think that it is a mistake in these cases to divorce Ministerial sponsorship from Ministerial procurement. If my hon. Friend's piece of organisation is not ideal—and my own view is that, for the reasons I have given, it is not ideal—it is still less ideal to give the Ministry of Technology sponsorship of the electronics industry, or the aircraft industry or the computer industry, but to give some other Ministry which has the right of procurement, and the still more diabolical right of refusing to procure, the power to wreck that industry whatever the sponsoring Ministry says. Let the Minister who wrecks the industry be responsible for the industry itself and not some other Minister who is powerless to help it in its plight.
There are limits to what we can do in space research. Whether we organise it correctly or accept to the full my hon. Friend's case, we do no service to the youth of this country by not recognising those limits. Space research as it exists is very largely a by-product of defence research. This is not because of its intrinsic character, but because, in order to get there at all, we must use a rocket, and rockets of the requisite size and lift have been developed for military purposes. The Americans and Russians have been able to develop various advanced products from their contact with outer space, not because they are better scientists than we are or because successive Governments

of whatever political persuasion are fuddy-duddies who do not realise the importance of what is being done, but because they have inter-continental ballistic missiles for one purpose and have chosen to use them for another.
If we had had an inter-continental ballistic missile when I was Secretary of State for Science, this country would, of course, have had a space research programme. But I do not think that the Secretary of State or myself, whichever of us was responsible for it, would have tried to persuade our colleagues that the sensible way to achieve a space research programme was by developing an intercontinental ballistic missile for that purpose alone.
My hon. Friend has made a point which I hope will be accepted by the Secretary of State, but I owe it to the right hon. Gentleman to say frankly that the piece of organisation which he proposes is not necessarily the right way of achieving the object.

Mr. M. Stewart: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has sparked off an interesting debate. Listening to him, I was never so absorbed since I read Jules Verne's "Journey to the Moon" many years ago. There is, however, a real danger in the kind of speech which he made—and I say this with respect to him—because it impressed and interested the Committee so much. Increasingly, as we were told earlier in the debate, the nation will have to decide its scientific priorities, on how much to devote to research altogether and how it can divide that effort among different research projects. We were held and interested by the hon. Member, but there ran through my mind the thought that if his studies and background had been different he could have held us equally well in urging some quite different kind of research.
We noticed in the earlier debate on work study the very skilful case put forward by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and the very shrewd criticisms which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach) thrust into that case. I think that this raises the question of how far, by debates in this Chamber, we can reach decisions on scientific priorities. It will be important for all of


us never to conceive of ourselves in this House as advocates. We are ultimately the judges, because we are the judges of the Government's judgment on scientific priorities. It is important, therefore, that however fascinating any branch of research is, we do not get carried away by it.
To a certain extent, the hon. Member is pushing at an open door. No one will dispute the sheer satisfaction that mankind gets from being able to make these amazing discoveries. No one will dispute the practical homely consequences that can follow from the most elaborate projects. On that second point, however, we have again to ask ourselves whether we have really been satisfied that the one is a necessary condition of the other. It somebody burns his house down, he might get roast beef. It does not follow that that is therefore the only, or the best, road to that objective.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said that the prestige project of today is the industrial project of the future. That is very often true. It would not be wise to accept it as an invariable rule and there would be real danger in being led by that phrase into an uncritical acceptance of any prestige projects.
I develop this general argument because I want to make it clear that while I fully accept that in the whole record of human achievement the conquest of space is of enormous importance, while I believe, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), that there is a way in which the country can play a part in that human achievement, we must remember that we have in the end to keep this in proportion with the other kinds of research and that the organisational structure of our science must be such as will make it easier for us to keep a balanced judgment and less likely that we can be swept off our balance by the magnificence and splendour of a particular branch of research or the opening of particular doorways into fresh knowledge.
Therefore, we have to return, with however much reluctance, from the great journey on which the hon. Member for

Bury St. Edmunds took us to, as the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone pointed out, the mundane question of whether, whatever view one takes of space research, the Amendment would actually improve the governmental mechanism with which the Bill is concerned. I am bound to say that I agree with the right hon. and learned Member that it would not.
I did not quite understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), because his hon. Friend tended on the whole to favour the organisational part of the Amendment. I shall show why I share the view of the right hon. and learned Member that this is not the way to do it.
It might be said, as the hon. Member for Abingdon said, that our present arrangements about space research are untidy, but that is only a superficial view. Broad policy in that field—what I think the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds had in mind when he spoke about finding out what is going on and putting us in the position where we can make proper judgments—will now be the function of the Science Research Council. There will then be that part of the whole space effort which is concerned, as one might put it, with means—rockets, launching vehicles, and so on—which is mainly the function of the Ministry of Aviation. Then there is that part of the whole thing which is concerned with industry, to which those means are put, in which the Ministry of Defence is particularly interested and, to take a happier example, in which the Post Office is interested as part of its whole field of telecommunications.
I believe that if we set up a council with the functions wholly or mainly as described in the Amendment we should only be able to do that by pulling away from all those agencies a bit of their work, resulting in duplication of work. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman illustrated this with regard to Jodrell Bank. Take another example. Research concerned with commercial satellites is bound to be very closely connected with the rest of the Post Office's telecommunications system. If it is to be shunted into the function of the Space Research Council we are again, presumably, going to get duplication of effort.
The phrase "bringing everything under one roof" is attractive till one considers what it means, that so many of the things which contribute to an intelligent and well-planned space effort are best done when done in connection with something else. The actual discovery of the right broad lines of policy for research will not be well done, I think, if it is divorced from other forms of high scientific study. I believe, therefore, that what the Committee wants done in space research can best be done through the Science Research Council already established under the Bill.
Some of the arguments I advanced on an earlier Amendment and against the Work Study Council also apply—the danger of allowing a number of councils to be proliferated too greatly to the damage of the administration and in a way which will make it ultimately harder for Government and Parliament to undertake this very difficult judgment of the priorities, which is the supreme question with which we are concerned.
I accept, therefore, the view that space research is an essential human effort at this time, that this country can play a part in it, though what part is a matter for argument. I do not think that really the question of the size of this country's space effort is germane to this Amendment, unless it can be shown that by adopting this particular machinery we shall be more likely to get the right size. I think that we should not get nearer the right answer to that question from the evidence we have had, but the need for this country to make a proper contribution to human knowledge in this field is not in dispute. I only say, let us not allow ourselves to forget our ultimate duty to be able to judge our priorities carefully. We must keep tidy the administrative machinery for doing that. We must not be pulled this way or that by particular enthusiasms, fascinating and skilfully presented though they may be.
I would, therefore, ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter and to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I want only to intervene for a very few minutes. I am not certain that a Space Research Council is the right way of co-ordinating our space efforts, but I am convinced that we need to co-ordinate

our research and our space effort much more than we have been doing up to now, and to put more investment into space and space projects than has been done. With the danger of the cancellation of TSR2 and possibly the P1154 and the HS681, I see also the danger of our splitting up our scientific teams, and, indeed, exporting our scientists. When one hon. Gentleman on the other side said that possibly some of the scientific people might go to co-ordinate efforts on the docks, I thought he was very wide of the mark.

Dr. Bray: The suggestion was actually put to me by a member of the TSR2 team.

Mr. Ridsdale: I should like to have that confirmed because I find it very unlikely that we shall see our scientists going down to organise the docks. They may make efforts in other spheres.
9.15 p.m.
I intervene only because I am convinced that much more should be done in the field of advanced technology than we are doing at the moment. When I was in the Air Ministry, I remember one of our distinguished air marshals, who flew a plane in 1915, saying "Who would have thought then that in 50 years we would be flying at 2,000 miles an hour, and who would think that in another 10 years we might be able to fly planes at 12,000 miles an hour, which is the speed required for re-entry from space?". If we contract out of this kind of research in this country, we will certainly find that our scientific teams will go abroad.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) was right when he talked about the vital rôle of communications. It is clear that investment in this field will pay us dividends. When I have listened to what is said by some right hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches, I find their words unimaginative and, indeed, defeatist. Obviously, this research is going to be expensive, and of course I do not visualise us spending money on the same scale as the Americans and the Russians, but I believe that if we invested £100 million we would get a vital return which would place us in the forefront of the scientific and industrial nations of the world.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Over what period would this £100 million be spent?

Mr. Ridsdale: I am certain that an investment of £100 million over a short period would pay dividends fairly quickly, especially in communication satellites. We have to apply our minds to both our social and scientific priorities. Unless we make this kind of investment in advanced technologies, we shall not have the wealth to pay for some of the social necessities which we all so earnestly desire.
It is for those reasons that I commend the Amendment to the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds has done a great service in putting it forward. I am not sure that the Space Research Council is the right answer, but anyone who pushes aside this kind of suggestion and thinks that we cannot apply our minds to this kind of investment is not furthering the interests either of this country or of the place of science in the Western world.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I should like to comment on one or two words which the Minister let drop in the course of his speech. I do not think that in the interests of Parliament we can accept for one second his suggestion that those who come here should not act as advocates. This would be an uninteresting place if we had to sit here as silent judges. There are silent judges of all these topics, and I was interested in and enthralled by the exciting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). I think that we ought to encourage that sort of advocacy, if it has that kind of result, and I hope that we will not accept from the lips of the Minister a procedure which will mean that we come here merely to give judgment on what the Government of the day decide to do.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean that, but that is what his words amounted to—that we must not make interesting or exciting speeches because that means that we are acting as advocates and by doing so we will interfere with our main function, which is to give judgment on whatever Government decisions may be made. I have intervened merely to put that matter right.
The first half of my hon. Friend's speech established his claim to take part in this debate. What my right hon. and learned Friend said in reply, namely, that the remedy suggested is not the right one, must be accepted, but what we cannot do is accept the assertion of the Minister that we must merely listen and give judgment, and never be exciting.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I shall probably be the only back bencher speaking on this side of the Committee who does not entirely favour the idea of a Space Research Council, certainly in the context in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) put it. The Committee is indebted to my hon. Friend, however, for introducing the topic, because it is certainly as important as is the need of the Government to get their priorities right.
The Minister deserves some sympathy in trying to follow the various instructions given to him from time to time. He has been told to keep his feet on the ground; to gaze at far horizons; to use his imagination, and to live this day as if it were his last. At times he has even been told to lock up his daughters. In my opinion, the wisest thing that any Government of this country could do in deciding the right priorities would be to consider the geography of the world and Britain's position on the face of the globe, recognising that that dictates certain very important priorities.
In talking about space it is important to consider of what height we are thinking. The far-flung ironmongery which is now careering towards the planets is not the most important sort of ironmongery for Britain to be thinking about. The heights upon which Britain should be concentrating in her study of space lie between 50 and 100 miles up. That is the sort of height above the surface of the globe that will be of immense importance for transporting human beings hither and thither about the world in the future. We do not know enough about that yet, and the more we know, and the sooner we know it, the better we shall be able to hold our position in the world.
Whatever decision the Minister comes to on this matter—whether he decides to leave it in the care of a Science Research Council or some other body—what will matter is the dissemination of knowledge, and the resolution of more Government


Departments to cut down to an absolute minimum their interference with the manufacturing side of aviation and the aircraft industry and to ensure that every encouragement is given to all the companies involved in this business, so that they can support research departments of their own and create an element of competition. That is what has made this country great.
This country has produced brilliant ideas in a practical form. All too often other countries find ways of taking fuller advantage of these ideas, once they have been thought out, but the moment this country loses its ability to provide the brilliant ideas in practical form its position will indeed be parlous. We are still far removed from any such danger, but the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that the future of the British aircraft industry is of absolutely vital importance in this context, and that whatever spin-out, spin-off or fall-out comes from the sort of research mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, in his brilliant speech, it is important that the Government should regard it as their primary duty to see that those who are most likely to be able to take full advantage of this knowledge are given every facility to obtain it and to apply it for themselves.
This is the sort of question upon which the Government would be wise to concentrate most of all in considering this vital problem.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I feel as though I am one of those American rockets at Cape Kennedy which it was difficult to get off the ground. In the comments which have been made on my Amendment there has been a great deal of laughter about frying pans and dentists' drills, which I quite understand. There was a rebuke from the Secretary of State about the function of an hon. Member who comes to this House, and from my own Front Bench a feeling that there was not the most absolute joy and happiness about the Amendments proposed.
The case that I was making does not rest on frying pans or dentists' drills, but on the much wider and broader fact that men are intervening in a new dimension greater than anything in our whole terrestrial experience. This is something in which the young people of this country

wish us to participate. That is the big and broad premise on which this Amendment was based.
I would say to the Secretary of State, with the deepest respect, that, of course, it is a matter of selecting priorities. We are not the richest of countries and we must choose. The choosing surely is the task of the Government, but surely it is not right that an hon. Member of this House should be denied an opportunity to advocate something which he believes to be right for the country. If we cannot advocate a policy of this kind in the House of Commons, where can we advocate it?

Dr. David Kerr: Perhaps there is some confusion about what was said by the Secretary of State. What he said to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) may be one thing; what he said to me was that when we have people with proved interests and the ability to present them to the House of Commons, the House, or the Committee, accepts responsibility for discrimination and not repudiation.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarification. My point is that the House of Commons—I say this as a very brash newcomer—is the place where every kind of enthusiasm, whether it be agriculture, mathematics, industry, or machine tools, may be advocated. Surely that is the great value of the House of Commons.
With the deepest respect to the Secretary of State, I must say that I cannot accept that it is proper to say that an hon. Member shall not say to the House what he believes to be right for this country. I wish, briefly, to say that the object of this Amendment was not to launch a great programme of rockets and "hardware". Its primary object was study, and I should like to underline that—to study, to find out, to collate, and to propose areas where we should most concentrate our efforts; and also, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), tidy up some of the loose organisations which we have at present.
I do not say that the frying pans and the rest of it result simply from space research. Like all forms of human activity, space research interacts with others. A whole body of knowledge has


been stimulated by the space programmes. I say this having seen something of it in the United States. I ask the Government to recognise that. I understand their problem, and the problem that confronted the previous Government, but the fact is that there are rapidly coming into being new processes and methods and techniques which, as a nation, we cannot afford to lose out on. Others are benefiting from this new field. I do not believe that we are benefiting so much, neither do I believe that we can afford not to participate in the creation of this world of telecommunications network.
9.30 p.m.
In everything we do in scientific and technological research we are part of the whole fraternity of nations. There is no room for a Union Jack in space. This is something we must participate in with the European countries and join with the Americans. Let us at least join. It is for that reason that I recognise one point the Secretary of State made; that the Amendment in some ways is pushing at an open door. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman said that.
If that is so, I urge him to tell us at a future date what the Government intend to do in space telecommunications, because this is something vitally important to our industry and the country. Will he say in which way the Government propose to prosecute research into this vast new dimension? It is in the hope and belief that the Government will announce what Britain will do to ensure that we do not lose the advantages which are already accruing to others that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 17, to leave out "or principal objects".
We come from the exciting area of space to the mundane matters of the machinery of the Bill. Referring back to Clause 1(1,c), which provides for the establishment of research councils by Order in Council, it should be noticed that Clause 1(4) limits that provision by requiring certain conditions precedent before the establishment of such councils; that is, that there must be a draft Order laid before both Houses of Parli-

ament, the draft must be approved by both Houses and the draft must specify the objects or the principal objects of the council.
It is the words "or principal objects" which become sinister in the context of the rest of the Bill. Suppose, for example, that an Order in Council is laid in draft before the House for the establishment of, say, a road safety research council giving just the principal objects of the council. Under Clause 3(6) the right hon. Gentleman could then take over, say, all Ministerial powers relating to trunk roads. I am exaggerating what might happen, but it is quite possible that that could happen under the Bill as it stands.

Mr. M. Stewart: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has understood Clause 3(6) correctly. That would not give me power to take functions from other Departments of Government. It would merely determine, if it had been decided, and that would be a matter of whole Government policy on which the House would have to pronounce, that such a transfer was to be made and I would merely have the necessary powers to make consequential transfers of property.

Mr. Page: We will come to Clause 3(6) in due course. However, it certainly empowers the Minister to transfer Governmental functions from one Department to another, from one research council to another or from a Government Department to a research council. That is why I say that as the Bill stands, once having set out in an Order in Council the principal objects of a research council, the Minister could then go on to make alterations in those objects under later Clauses. He would be entitled to do so. The Order in Council would say, "These are the principal objects of the proposed Council"—yet having obtained the Order it would be perfectly within his rights to transfer any functions to that body.
It might be said, "What does that matter? This is merely a research council doing research work and we must be flexible about what we give these research councils to do." But the rights of research councils impinge on the rights of the individual citizen. For


example, later in the Bill, Nature Conservancy powers of compulsory purchase of land are transferred to the Natural Enviroment Research Council. These are things about which the House of Commons should be told when a new research, council is formed, and told in some detail. We should be told not merely the principal objects of the drift Order in Council but the objects in detail of what it is proposed the research council should have power to do.
The House of Commons would not deny a council flexibility and there is no reason to hide from it the purposes for which a research council is set up. We would ensure that the House would know those purposes if it was necessary under Clause 1(4) for the Minister to set out in a draft Order not merely the principal objects but the detailed objects for which he intends to set up a research council.

Mr. M. Stewart: I think that I can allay the alarm of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) about this matter. I tried in an intervention to draw his attention to the fact that Clause 3(6) arises only where the activities of a research council or a Government Department in relation to scientific research are to be taken over from it otherwise than under this Clause. The point of Clause 3(6) is merely that when a decision has been reached—and power to do it does not lie in the Bill—and properly approved it would be necessary that I should have power to make consequential adjustments to property, and so on. That is all that Clause 3(6) would do.
The hon. Member foresaw one objection to the Amendment—the danger of limiting too rigidly a research council by attempting to define in advance in a Statute the whole exhaustive list of its objects. I am sure that he would not want to do that, and an earlier Amendment in his name included the words:
The Work Study Research Council shall be a body established wholly or mainly for objects …
There is the hon. Member giving us a flexible definition of the objects of the council which he wanted to set up under the Bill. Was that a sinister device to set up a Work Study Research Council, and did he have this insidious phrase,

"wholly or mainly" so that any other objects could be tacked on later? If the hon. Member applied his own analysis to his own Amendment and the one which we are now discussing he would say that it would be absurd to try to define in a Statute the objects of a research council with such fullness that one could say that no addition could ever be made to them without altering a Statute.
There is a further safeguard. These bodies are to be brought into existence by Royal Charter. I drew attention on Second Reading to the slightly tortuous reading of Clause 1, because that is the nature of the matter. Scientists attach a good deal of importance to this because it sets an impressive seal of independence on bodies of this kind. The Charter will set out more fully than a Statute what the objects of a council should be. It would be something of an invasion of the traditional function of a Charter if we attempted to do the whole of its work for it in the course of a Bill.
I can assure the hon. Member that nothing sinister is intended and nothing sinister could result. It is reasonable, in order to get the required flexibility, and it is in accordance with the general nature of these councils as bodies set up under Royal Charter that we should not adopt the hon. Member's Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: I am not at all satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's answer. He criticised the words which I used in an earlier Amendment, but they were, in fact, a compliment to him and his Bill, being taken from a point in subsection (2) where he himself uses the expression
 wholly or mainly for objects consisting of
and so on.

Mr. M. Stewart: Very sensible.

Mr. Page: We shall come to the point which the right hon. Gentleman made about the Royal Charter on a later Amendment, and I, therefore, reserve my position about that. I think that the real dispute will arise between us on the question of the powers which the Bill gives to the Minister under a later Clause. I shall not detain the Committee further on this Amendment, but I shall come back to the fight later.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(RE-ALLOCATION OF ACTIVITIES CONNECTED WITH SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.)

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 21, to leave out:
and the National Oceanographic Council".
My object in putting this Amendment down is really twofold. First, on Second Reading we had practically no reference to oceanography, and there was no attempt that I could find to justify this change. Secondly, as this Council performs a very useful task, it seems only fair that someone should pay tribute to the work which it has done.
Oceanography may not sound quite so romantic as space travel, but it is none the less an extremely important subject. As little interest was aroused by the book "The Sea Around Us", but the fact remains that, although the sea covers such a very large proportion of the surface of this planet, we know extraordinary little about it compared with what we know about the land surface.
I have another reason for moving the Amendment. For five years I was chairman of this Council. It was not a particularly onerous task. It consisted, in part, of presiding once a year over a very learned Council and, in greater part, more frequently, of badgering the Treasury for the necessary money to carry on this very valuable work. Not only the Treasury was involved, as we used to receive large contributions from overseas, from Commonwealth countries such as Australia, for instance. Before this change was proposed, was there consultation with those countries which made their valuable contributions over so many years?
With the somewhat limited resources at the disposal of the institute, we were able to set up a headquarters at Wormley, where they still are, and the second question I put is: is the work to go on there or not?
We began with a rather old ship, "Discovery", for the very important research work which is done all over the world, but a new ship has now been built, and we definitely need an assurance that she is to be fully utilised and that the kind of research work that she can do is not to be cut back in any way.
This brings me to my next question: are we, as a maritime Power, spending enough on oceanography? We read in the newspapers of the effort which has been put into the work in Canada, the effort to persuade more graduates to take it up, the building of more ships, and so on. We learn also, not altogether surprisingly, that the Soviet Union is doing a great deal of oceanographic research.
On a comparison of the official figures of what we and other countries spend on oceanography, we do not come out very well. We spend £2,170,000 a year, the United States spends no less than £20 million, France spends £1½ million and West Germany—not what one might regard as a maritime nation—£1¾ million This is not very large, whatever way we look at it, and considering that we are a maritime nation I think that, as a percentage of total Government expenditure on civil scientific research, it does not show us up in a very good light. I hope that this new change will put that right, rather than have the reverse result.
9.45 p.m.
I believe that the record of the institute has been a good one up to now. It has had very close naval ties and though, at first sight, that may seem illogical, it has, in fact, been of great use to it. It had naval work given it to do when it was short of work for the research aspect, for example. The ties with the Hydrographer of the Navy have been functional ties which, I am sure, have resulted in the collection of a great deal of information.
I think that before this Committee, as it were, winds up the Council, it should pay a tribute to the staff of the institute, and particularly to Dr. Deacon, who has been with them for so long. I believe that a great deal of interesting data has been collected, information about the ocean deeps, information about currents—it may be that the whale marking project was not entirely successful—and information about plankton. Indeed, high tribute has


been paid elsewhere to their work, although during the passage of the Bill we have paid scant attention to it. There is a tribute from the United States Academy that it is the outstanding centre for oceanographers. I hope that it will go out from this Committee tonight that we think they have done a good job.
I am not entirely happy about this new name—the National Environment Research Council. I suppose that it is the best that can be devised. I should hardly have regarded the depths of the ocean as a natural environment for the Parliamentary Secretary or, indeed, for any of is. I should have thought it a very unnatural environment indeed. The other thing which I am not quite happy about is this bedfellow which it has been given, in the Nature Conservancy. I must confess that I do not have the highest of opinions of the Nature Conservancy and I am worried lest this should in any way restrict the valuable work—much more valuable work, as I believe—which is being carried out in oceanography.
I should like in reply an assurance that the work is to continue unhampered, that the proposed change will not be a cloak for any particular cut. I also hope that a bit more of an effort will be made than has bee I made in the past to give the fullest publicity to the very valuable work which is being done.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Education and Science (Mr. James Boyden): I am sure that the whole Committee is most grateful to the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) for raising the subject of the National Oceanographic Council and for paying his tribute to it. If I may pay tribute to his five years as chairman of the Council—even though, perhaps, he did not find it onerous—he has shown here tonight his continued interest in it. It is a subject which, I think, would arouse enthusiasm in the minds of all good English people who like the sea.
I am sure that the hon. Member would not want me to commit the Government to any specific development in relation to oceanography at the moment, but I can assure him that this particular rearrangement will have no adverse effect on the subject in which he is interested. I should have thought that putting

oceanography in with N.E.R.C. and developing the whole field of environmental studies was bound to be for the advantage of oceanography. In the general reorganisation of science I think that this will be to the advantage and not to the disadvantage of the subject.
As the hon. Member knows, the National Oceanographic Council is a large body. It represents wide interests—not only United Kingdom Departments and scientific interests but Commonwealth Governments. It works mainly through the Executive Committee, which administers the National Institute of Oceanography. The finances for this have come from several different sources. They have come from the Navy Department and from the Development Commission. University research grants in oceanography have come from D.S.I.R. It is thought—and the previous Government thought this, too—that this arrangement is cumbersome and unsatisfactory.
The Advisory Council on Scientific Policy accepted the recommendation of one of its committees, the Sir William Slater Committee, to put oceanographic research into the Natural Environment Research Council, and, also, that it should take over the interests in N.I.O. This recommendation was endorsed by the Trend Committee. The Navy Department did not have any objection to it and, in fact, the Navy Department will have an assessor on the oceanographic committee, although not necessarily on N.E.R.C.
I think that there has been general agreement on the fact that this reorganisation will be helpful to oceanographic research and not harmful to it. I cannot be expected to give a pledge that particular work will be expanded, but I can assure the hon. Member that this work will be in no way diminished by this piece of reorganisation. I therefore hope that he is prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: Before the Minister concludes, will he reply to my hon. Friend's question about whether there has been consultation with the Commonwealth?

Mr. Boyden: N.O.C. has its annual meeting next week and the proposals will be formally explained to it. The


Commonwealth Governments are represented on it. But there was no consultation with the Commonwealth Governments during the time of the previous Government and there has been no consultation by this Government since.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I wish to put one point to the Parliamentary Secretary. The Council is to be wound up and to become part of the Natural Environment Research Council. In the definition of the work of the Natural Environment Research Council, in Clause 1, nothing is said about the oceans. The Council is to be a body established for the carrying out of research in the earth sciences and ecology—which is the relationship between the human being and the environment. Nothing is said about the sea.
This has always been an important subject in this country, where oceanographic research has been a great tradition from the days of Captain Cooke, Sir James Ross, Captain Shackleton, Captain Scott and others. I hope that the fact that these things are not mentioned does not mean that the work will be hindered by the tight drafting of the Act.

Mr. Boyden: I can give the hon. Member an assurance on that point.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: In view of the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Boyden: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 27, after "sections" to insert "84".
The effect of the Amendment is to place a duty on the Nature Conservancy to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry when exercising their functions under the National Parks Act. When the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) spoke of the need for the Nature Conservancy to co-operate with the Ministry of Agriculture, I had in mind that this Amendment would have that effect.
I have something of the same difficulty in my constituency. Upper Teesdale has very rare flora, particularly blue gentians, and there is a conflict of interest between those who want work in the building of large reservoirs and nature conservancy interests. The nature conservationists feels that the rare flora and rare terrain would be spoiled by the building of reservoirs. But that is only by way of illustration. The Amendment is a very simple one and makes sure that this consultation will take place.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 10, after "instrument", to insert:
(which shall be laid before Parliament and shall be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament)".

The Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to take, at the same time, Amendments Nos. 12, 15 and 19.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Dr. King. May I ask whether, if we find the answers to our Amendments not very satisfactory, we shall have an opportunity of voting on Amendments that we group with this one?

The Chairman: I believe that there is one Amendment which the hon. Gentleman would wish to press to a Division. Is that so?

Mr. Graham Page: Subject to what may be said from the Government Front Bench, I would wish, Dr. King, to press Amendment No. 15 to a Division.
These four Amendments deal with the form in which delegated legislation under the Bill may be exercised. Perhaps I might preface my remarks by saying that the form in which delegated legislation is to be made is decided by the Bill itself. It comes perhaps as rather a shock to some of us when we refer to the Statutory Instrument Act, 1946, to find that that Act does not say that every Statutory Instrument should come before the House in any form at all. Statutory Instruments may be made without being laid before the House. It is for the Bill itself to provide the procedure for those Statutory Instruments.
In regard to the case dealt with by Amendment No. 11, subsection (6) refers to a Statutory Instrument. It does not direct that it shall be laid, it does not direct that it shall be subject to annulment by the House, and it does not direct that it shall be subject to any affirmative Resolution procedure. In fact, the House need never know about it. It need never come before the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. Except for the vigilance of a private Member, it need never be known.
But what can be achieved by that Statutory Instrument is the transfer of ministerial functions. According to the early part of Clause 3(6) as it stands, the Minister can transfer property, rights, liabilities or obligations from a research council to a research council, from a research council to a Government Department or the other way round, or even from a Government Department to a Government Department merely by a Statutory Instrument which will not come before the House.
Amendment No. 12 deals with the latter part of subsection (6). There the Minister would be empowered to transfer to any research council or Government Department the responsibility for any activities in relation to scientific research. This is the transfer of ministerial functions. It could be by an Order of which the House will know nothing, because the directions mentioned in the latter part of subsection (6) need never come before the House and need never be considered by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Secretary of State may order the transfer of the responsibility for any activities in relation to scientific research which may be carried on by a Government Department.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Science and Technology Bill and of the Committee of Ways and Means may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Orders of the Day — SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. Graham Page: The purpose of Amendments No. 11 and No. 12, which refer to Clause 3(6), is that any Statutory Instrument or other directions made by the Minister by virtue of the subsection should come before the House. It is quite unthinkable and unprecedented that Ministerial functions should be transferred without the House having the opportunity of debating and if necessary annulling the Statutory Instrument.
The procedure of making Statutory Instruments without bringing them before the House of Commons applies to local matters—things to do with the village green or temporary one-way streets. It does not even apply to permanent one-way streets. To apply that procedure to this kind of Ministerial duty is quite unprecedented.
The principle that a Statutory Instrument transferring functions should be subject to annulment in the House is clearly recognised in an Amendment put on the Order Paper by the Secretary of State himself—Amendment No. 13, in page 4, line 18, at end insert:
(7) On any such transfer of responsibility as is mentioned in subsection (6) above the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide, so far as appears to him necessary or expedient for giving full effect to the transfer, for the repeal or amendment of any provision in any enactment affecting a Research Council or government department concerned, and make transitional, supplemental or incidental provision in connection with any such repeal or amendment; but the statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
If, therefore, a Statutory Instrument is made transferring functions the right hon. Gentleman himself recognises, by that Amendment, that it is only right and proper that it should be subject to annulment by the House. Our first two Amendments would support the same principle.
Our Amendment No. 15 is the most important of this group. Clause 4(1) gives the Atomic Energy Authority a right to take over, by direction of the Minister, matters not connected with atomic energy. Clause 4 refers to
… such matters … as may … be required by the Minister. …


But the Clause does not even say how the Minister shall make known his requirement. Certainly it is not to be by laying any direction or Statutory Instrument before Parliament.
By all means let the Authority widen the range of its work to meet, as the right hon. Gentleman expressed it on Second Reading, widening scientific knowledge, but Parliament should be informed of the Minister's intentions and not be left to find out as a result of some research work done by a single hon. Member. So far we have heard of only two fields into which the Authority might wish to roam—desalination and computers.
The significance of the provision lies in the application of Clause 4(1) to Section 2 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954. The Authority was created by that Act and its powers were limited and gave it certain special powers of compulsory purchase and so on, and certain special immunities, for example, from Income Tax. It gave the Authority the right to manufacture goods. Its objects, powers and immunities were very carefully described and circumscribed by the Act.
It ought not to be made possible for a Minister to enlarge those powers without asking Parliament whether he may do so. This is one of the cases in which a Bill seeks to give power to a Minister to alter and extend an Act of Parliament. That is quite clearly to be on some requirement, which, on the wording of the Clause, may be only oral, not even a requirement in writing for anybody to know that the Minister requires the Act to be vastly extended.
Precedent in such matters is quite clear and it is that delegated legislation should be by Statutory Instrument, subject to affirmative Resolution. In the Report of the Select Committee on Delegated Legislation in 1953, there is the evidence of Sir Alan Ellis, speaking with the authority and experience of senior Parliamentary counsel. Sir Alan Ellis described to the Committee the normal approach to the problem of choosing between the negative and the affirmative procedure. While unable to suggest a rigid principle which would govern the choice, he named three types of case in which it might be expected that the affirmative procedure would be preferred. The first of those types is the

class of power which, when exercised, would substantially affect the provisions of an Act of Parliament, whether by altering its language, or increasing or limiting its extent, or duration, or otherwise.
Clause 4 states quite clearly that these directions are intended to extend the scope of the 1954 Act. This is clearly a case in which any extension should be by Statutory Instrument which should come before Parliament for an affirmative Resolution, the Statutory Instrument itself coming before the House of Commons, or being laid in draft, which is the most convenient way to get the affirmative Resolution of the House.
This is the form of procedure which we have suggested. If the Minister wants to increase the powers of the Authority, he should not be frightened to tell Parliament that he intends to do so and to get approval by laying a draft Order first and letting the House debate it to see exactly how he wishes to extend the Authority's powers.
In explaining the last Amendment of the four, may I refer back to Clause 1(1) where the research councils are established by Royal Charter. The Royal Charter is to fol0low an Order in Council under Clause 1(4). The Order in Council follows Parliament's approval of a draft Order. Having gone through all that procedure, we turn to Clause 6(2), which states that the Royal Charter can be altered or revoked notwithstanding anything in the Bill. The whole matter having been considered and debated by the House, it is embodied in the Royal Charter which can be changed without the knowledge of the House.
Royal charters are made and amended in the Privy Council. They are dealt with on petition from those concerned, rather like an action without a hearing. Certainly, they are not known to the House of Commons unless one regularly reads the London Gazette. Yet, having gone through all the procedure of a draft order in council, the Order in Council and the Royal Charter based on that which the House has debated, it seems that under Clause 6 the Royal Charter may be changed. The Amendment would merely ensure that a royal charter which results from a draft Order in Council approved by the House shall not be nullified or enlarged without reference to Parliament.

Mr. Boyden: On the general point of Parliament's ability to discuss the scientific activities in the Bill, I should have thought that both Clause 2 and Amendment No. 13 gave adequate means of discussion in a better way than has been the case in the past. Clause 2 generally tidies up the arrangements for discussion in the sense that there will be one accounting officer for all the votes and a set procedure for dealing with matters.
It will be open to the Opposition to raise these issues on Supply Days. It will be possible to discuss them in the Estimates Committee, and the accounting procedure can be discussed in the Public Accounts Committee. I should have thought, therefore, that on almost every score there would be ample opportunity to discuss scientific developments within the scope of the Bill.
More specifically on Amendment No. 11, responsibility for research stations was, under the previous Administration, transferred to research councils and Government Departments without reference to Parliament. For example, in 1959, the Tropical Products Institute was transferred from the Colonial Office to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. This is a normal transaction between Departments by decision of the Government. It can, of course, take place only when the function conceived is covered by a statutory definition of the functions of the Department which is taking over the responsibility. There is, therefore, nothing improper or new about the procedure set out here.
The general effect of the Amendments would be to make parliamentary discussion take place on what are really administrative matters—for example, the transfer of property which, in the Bill, is simplified so that conveyancing, in the same way as with the transfer of contracts, can be done departmentally. There is no need to discuss this sort of thing in the House and I should have thought that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) would agree with that. The effect would be to burden the House of Commons unnecessarily. We are having rather longer sittings than we had fairly recently, and I should have thought that the House would not be particularly anxious to have opportunities to debate matters of this description when it could have much more formal opportunities for

discussing general scientific policy and the policies of the Council. I hope, therefore, for the reasons I have suggested, that the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
10.15 p.m.
When the hon. Member referred to Amendment No. 19—

Mr. Graham Page: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not leave subsection (6). There is another Amendment to it which is even more important than the one he has mentioned.

Mr. Boyden: I was coming to Amendment No. 12. On Amendment No. 19, however, the granting of a Royal Charter is a Royal Prerogative and amendment or revocation is likewise a prerogative matter. The proposal in Amendment No. 19 would infringe the Royal Prerogative. Behind this, as I think would be accepted on all sides of the Committee, the dealing with scientific councils and science on the basis of a charter is an arrangement which scientists very much prefer. Indeed, the proposition of the Government that there should be I.R.D.A. instead of the present arrangements was based upon this kind of attitude to it. It would, therefore, be out of keeping for the Opposition to try to infringe the Royal Prerogative in this way.
I should also have thought, on Amendment No. 12, that the proposition which is being advanced is very much against the stream of feeling which we have had in discussions in the House about parliamentary proceedings generally. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will feel inclined to accept the assurance that there will be no attempt to limit discussion on this side.
As to the Atomic Energy Authority—

Mr. Graham Page: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but he has not dealt with Amendment No. 12, which relates to the latter part of subsection (6), which is not merely a transfer of administrative matters. Here it is a transfer of
the responsibility for any activities in relation to scientific research.

Mr. Boyden: I thought I had dealt with that when dealing with Amendment No. 11. It has not been done in the


past between research councils and Government Departments. I assure the hon. Member that there is no departure from practice in this way.
If I may conclude with reference to the Atomic Energy Authority, I can, perhaps, give an assurance that there is no subtle intention here of trying to get that Authority to enter into commercial activities or anything of that sort. The intention is merely to extend the area of scientific activity, subject to the safeguard that the Atomic Energy Authority will have opportunities for consultation with the Minister of Technology and not be put in a position of being coerced to do things that it does not think that it should.

Mr. Graham Page: I am willing to accept a certain amount of the hon. Gentleman's argument on Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. He has, I think, underrated the powers that can be exercised under the latter part of subsection (6) by the transfer of functions described as
the responsibility for any activities in relation to scientific research.
If it is intended to transfer any of the functions of a Government Department to a research council, or vice versa, the House of Commons should know about it and, by means of a Statutory Instrument laid before it in the normal way, subject to annulment, the House should have a chance of knowing what is happening.
I would not press to a Division the Amendment concerning the Royal Charter, but I regard Amendment No. 15, adding the subsection requiring a draft Order to come before the House so that the House may know what the Minister of Technology will do by way of expanding the powers of the Atomic Energy Authority, as essential. The Joint Under-Secretary has said that there is no intention to extend the commercial activities of the Authority, but this is exactly what subsection (1) of Clause 4 says.
I would accept that he has no such intention. Why, then, should not the Minister of Technology bring his intentions before the House and let the House see them? What is he afraid of? We can only suspect that he intends to extend the Atomic Energy Authority's powers to the manufacture, to the distribution, of goods which have no connection with atomic energy at all, because Section 2

of the 1954 Act gives all these powers to the Authority in relation to atomic matters, and now, under Clause 4(1) of this Bill, the Minister will have the power to grant the Authority the right to manufacture any article it chooses, any article the Minister chooses, without telling the House anything about it at all. If he does intend only to cope with the widening scientific knowledge, then let the House know about it; let him bring it by draft Order to the House.
Really, the hon. Gentleman has not dealt at all with precedent in this matter. The precedent is perfectly clear, and it was explained to the Select Committee on delegated legislation, and it was put into the Committee's Report, that it is normal, if a Bill is providing for a Minister by Statutory Instrument or by direction to alter legislation in an important matter, as this is, that it should be done only by an affirmative Resolution of the House. I think that this is such a serious matter that I must advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide on Amendment No. 15.

The Chairman: Do I take it that the hon. Member is withdrawing Amendment No. 11?

Mr. Page: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Boyden: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 4, line 18, at the end to insert:
(7) On any such transfer of responsibility as is mentioned in subsection (6) above the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide, so far as appears to him necessary or expedient for giving full effect to the transfer, for the repeal or amendment of any provision in any enactment affecting a Research Council or government department concerned, and make transitional, supplemental or incidental provision in connection with any such repeal or amendment; but the statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

The Chairman: I think that it would be convenient with this Amendment to take Amendments No. 14 and 16.

Mr. Boyden: Yes.
The purpose of the Amendment, of the new subsection, is to provide for the repeal or amendment of the relevant enactments to be included among consequential steps which can be taken by


statutory order when responsibility for particular scientific research activities is transferred between Departments or research councils. When activities are transferred in the circumstances envisaged in subsection (6) of this Clause some consequential amendment or repeal of enactments may be desirable, and the Amendments now proposed will enable such amendments or repeals to be made.
Where, for example, an enactment provides for a particular council to be consulted in relation to certain matters, if the relevant activities of that council were transferred to another council or Department, it would be relevant to substitute the other body for the research council mentioned in the enactment itself.
Provision will be made by way of the negative Resolution procedure. Again I invoke in aid the Second Reading speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), who wished that this procedure should be adopted. I would think that this Amendment would assist what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has been asking for, and I ask the Committee to accept it.

Mr. Graham Page: I think that, as the hon. Gentleman said, this will assist the points which I was making on the previous two Amendments, and it was because of this Amendment being on the Paper that I did not press those previous two Amendments, but I cannot resist the temptation to say that here, in this Amendment, the whole principle which I was advocating on the previous Amendments is recognised and accepted.

Here, where there is a transfer of functions, the Statutory Instrument carrying out that transfer is to be subject to annulment by the House.

Why the hon. Gentleman could not have accepted the previous Amendments and had a similar type of Statutory Instrument relating to this I do not know. I agree that in this case it does not need to be by affirmative Resolution because these are consequential Amendments to previous enactments. This is distinct from Amendment No. 15. On the whole, I agree with the hon. Gentleman in his Amendment here. It accepts the right principle, which I wish he would have applied to other sections of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 19, leave out "subsection (6)", and insert" subsections (6) and (7)".—[Mr. Boyden.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(EXTENSION OF RESEARCH FUNCTIONS OF ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY.)

Amendment proposed: In page 4, line 30, at end insert:
(2) A requirement by the Minister of Technology under the last preceding subsection shall be made by order of which a draft shall have been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. [Mr. Graham Page. ]

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 141, Noes 181.

Division No. 47.]
AYES
[10.26 p.m.


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Chichester-Clark, R.
Gresham-Cooke, R.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cooke, Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Corfield, F. V.
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)


Astor, John
Curran, Charles
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Atkins, Humphrey
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Baker, W. H. K.
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Hall-Davis, A. C. F.


Balniel, Lord
Dean, Paul
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)


Batsford, Brian
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)


Bell, Ronald
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hawkins, Paul


Biggs-Davison, John
Doughty, Charles
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hendry, Forbes


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Higgins, Terence L.


Box, Donald
Errington, Sir Eric
Hiley, Joseph


Brewis, John
Farr, John
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Forrest, George
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hooson, H. E.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Hordern, Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Glover, Sir Douglas
Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)


Buck, Antony
Gower, Raymond
Hunt, John (Bromley)


Chataway, Christopher
Grant, Anthony
Hutchison, Michael Clark




Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Speir, Sir Rupert


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Murton, Oscar
Stainton, Keith


Jopling, Michael
Neave, Airey
Stodart, J. A.


Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Studholme, Sir Henry


Kilfedder, James A.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Summers, Sir Spencer


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Kitson, Timothy
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Temple, John M.


Litchfield, Capt. John
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Longden, Gilbert
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lubbock, Eric
Peel, John
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Percival, Ian
Wall, Patrick


Mackie, George Y. (C'nees &amp; S'land)
Pitt, Dame Edith
Ward, Dame Irene


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pounder, Rafton
Webster, David


McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maitland, Sir John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Whitelaw, William


Marten, Neil
Pym, Francis
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Maude, Angus
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin
Wylie, N. R.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Younger, Hn. George


Miscampbell, Norman
Scott-Hopkins, James



Monro, Hector
Sharples, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


More, Jasper
Shepherd, William
Mr. McLaren and Mr. MacArthur.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Manuel, Archie


Alldritt, W. H.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Mapp, Charles


Armstrong, Ernest
Galpern, Sir Myer
Marsh, Richard


Atkinson, Norman
Garrow, A.
Mason, Roy


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce


Barnett, Joel
Griffiths, Will (M'chester Exchange)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Baxter, William
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Beaney, Alan
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Binns, John
Hannan, William
Murray, Albert


Blackburn, F.
Hattersley, Roy
Neal, Harold


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hayman, F. H.
Newens, Stan


Boardman, H.
Hazell, Bert
Norwood, Christopher


Boston, T. G.
Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Gordon


Boyden, James
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Ogden, Eric


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Horner, John
Oswald, Thomas


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire W.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Buchanan, Richard
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Palmer, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pavitt, Laurence


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Pentland, Norman


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Perry, Ernest G.


Coleman, Donald
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Popplewell, Ernest


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Probert, Arthur


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Randall, Harry


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cronin, John
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Richard, Ivor


Darling, George
Kelley, Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rowland, Christopher


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, George
Sheldon, Robert


Delargy, Hugh
Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Dell, Edmund
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Dempsey, James
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Dodds, Norman
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Lomas, Kenneth
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Dunn, James A.
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Small, William


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Solomons, Henry


Ennals, David
McCann, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Ensor, David
MacColl, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
MacDermot, Niall
Steele, Thomas


Fernyhough, E.
McGuire, Michael
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
McInnes, James
Stonehouse, John


Pitch, Alan (Wigan)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Stones, William


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
MacKenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Swain, Thomas


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Swingler, Stephen


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Floud, Bernard
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)







Thornton, Ernest
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington>


Tinn, James
Wallace, George
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Tomney, Frank
Whitlock, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Tuck, Raphael
Wilkins, W. A.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)



Wainwright, Edwin
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Harper and Mr. O'Malley.

Amendment made: In line 35, after "Section 3 (6)", insert "and (7)". [Mr. M. Stewart.]


Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(FURTHER POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE AND MINISTER OF TECHNOLOGY.)

Mr. David Price: I beg to move, Amendment No. 17, in page 5, line 2, at the end to insert:
otherwise than by direct manufacture for commercial purposes".
As the Clause is drafted the Minister of Technology would have a blank cheque to set up any number of factories and industries which he liked, and my hon. Friends and I are anxious to define his powers to further the practical application of the results of scientific research.
We recognise that it may not be possible to foresee every situation ahead, but we expect the Secretary of State to give some examples. Nor would we dissent from the general view expressed in another place by the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology as to the desirability of using development contracts and Government purchasing as primary methods of furthering technological application. What we do dissent from, however, is the implication that the Minister of Technology should have blanket powers to indulge in direct manufacture for commercial purposes.
I suspect that below the respectable clothing of technological development we can detect the cloven hoof of nationalisation, especially when the clothes are worn by Mr. F. Cousins. Unamended, the Clause could provide the back door to wholesale nationalisation and my hon. Friends and I, as hon. Members opposite will not be surprised to know, are totally opposed to further nationalization—as, indeed, is the vast majority of the public in this country.
Since they have been returned to power, the Government have announced only their proposals to re-nationalise iron and steel and to set up a lands commission. It may not be their intention to extend public ownership by the use of the powers in this Clause, in which case we are much relieved—although, if this is so, they should surely have no difficulty in accepting the Amendment. I appreciate that there is always Government pride in draftsmanship. They may not like the

wording of the Amendment, but if they accept it in principle I am sure that my hon. Friends would be well content with that. We on this side would wish to hear their intentions from the Secretary of State tonight.
However, from earlier statements by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite we have good reason to be suspicious, and not least from those of the Minister of Technology. I remind the Committee that in an interview published in Tribune on 1st May last year Mr. Cousins said:
There is no reason at all why public ownership should not be put into the new and modern industries right from the word go. It should also be obvious that some of the industries in which the greatest progress has to be made, and where the greatest investment has to be put in will not develop properly unless they are in public hands.
As he is not yet with us, it would be unfair to press the Secretary of State to defend this statement by Mr. Cousins, but I put it on the record in support of my thesis that we have good reasons to be suspicious of the Government's intentions.
There are many statements by the Prime Minister, not least his Scarborough speech of 1st October, 1963, but I will not detain the Committee by quoting from them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] If my hon. Friends would like a bit of it I will quote, but I think that one can make the Prime Minister's point more shortly in the language of the Labour Party Manifesto, which certainly may be taken as the official view of the party opposite, when it said on page 9 of "The New Britain":
A Labour Government will go beyond research and development and establish new industries, either by public enterprise, or in partnership with private industry.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that hon. Members opposite approve of this statement. It shows how right my hon. and right hon. Friends were in being suspicious of this power in what appeared to be an innocuous Bill. It is more than the cloven hoof. The whole tail of the beast is now emerging.
I should like to remind the Committee of some of the reasons why we on this side of the Committee think that it is not desirable for the Government to indulge in setting up State industries as a method of promoting technological advance. In our view, first of all, the


classical arguments against nationalisation remain valid. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"] I am sure that my hon. Friends are very familiar with them. If hon. Members opposite think of the arguments which they advance in favour of it and put them in front of a mirror they will have the arguments against.
Secondly, there is the assumption that if a venture is State-owned it is more purposive, which is the Prime Minister's phrase, than if privately owned. One asks by what criteria purpose is to be measured. The Prime Minister has never told us by what criteria he measures purpose. [HON. MEMBERS: "The national interest."] The phrase "national interest" is just as elusive and indicative of absolutely nothing. The use of these imprecise terms is a common failing of hon. Members opposite. They run away from the normal criteria of profitability and making the thing work arid when they have made a thorough mess of it they say, "We are not interested in those. We are concerned with the national interest". The national interest is used as an argument by hon. and right hon. Members opposite when they can advance no proper criteria for the measurement of success or failure. There is no substitute in economic affairs for the discipline of the market. That was certainly the First Secretary of State's view as well as mine. The Committee will recall that, in the debate on the Address, the right hon. Gentleman told us:
In general terms, we need to create a competitive climate in which efficiency is rewarded and inefficiency penalised".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1964; Vol. 701, c. 220.]
10.45 p.m.
One of the characteristics of a State industry is that, when it gets into financial difficulties, it has to be bailed out by the taxpayer. Would the Secretary of State or the Minister of Technology be prepared to see a State venture in support of a new scientific development wound up if it were unprofitable? This is really the key question. The Committee has to face the harsh realities of economic life. There have to be sticks and carrots, and they are either those of the market—these cal be modified in certain cases, but, basically, they remain—or those of the full-blooded State-controlled system, and I do not believe that, over a longish

period of time, there is an in-between. There may be a transitional period when there is a move in one direction or another, but I do not believe that, over a generation or two, one can persist in a system which has neither the disciplines nor the rewards of these two alternatives.

Mr. Michael Foot: Hear, hear.

Mr. Price: I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. Although I think that we should choose differently between them, I am glad to have his support for the view that those are the alternatives. To be fair to the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench, I do not believe that they do accept these alternatives. They believe that one can go along in the middle, in a sort of pink soup which lacks either the rewards or the deterrents of the two alternative systems.
There is the further point that, apart from any theoretical arguments, the Ministry of Technology has no experience of running industrial plants or companies. I have a very high respect for the administrative class of the Civil Service, but they are not trained as commercial or industrial managers, let alone as entrepreneurs, and I do not think that they would claim to be. The whole way of life in Whitehall is antipathetic to taking commercial judgments and risks. I should, therefore, prefer to see the commercial exploitation of scientific and technological progress in the hands of those who are trained and whose way of life is commercial and industrial.
We are living in a mixed economy, partially publicly owned and controlled and partially privately owned. I believe that any further invasion of the private sector by the public may well lead us to the position where the State will have to take over the lot. Today, 40 per cent. of the capital formation in this country is in public ownership. If it is extended very much further, we shall reach the point of no return.
The Secretary of State may say in reply that a bridge is needed between the work of Government laboratories and the commercial exploitation of their discoveries. This bridge exists in the form of the National Research Development Corporation. I realise that the N.R.D.C.


has felt itself to be working under certain commercial disabilities in the past, and these were spelt out publicly in the Corporation's Report for the year 1961–62. But the proposals which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) put to the House on 28th July last, reported in columns 260–2 of HANSARD of that date, meet those disabilities. Is it the Government's intention to implement my right hon. Friend's proposals, and, if not, why not?
The Prime Minister is very keen on—some would say almost obsessed by—the Kennedy image, and he does his best to emulate the late President's actions and performances. I would ask him to have a look at the American Government's methods of stimulating scientific and technical research. Contrast the amount of Government research and development, let alone commercial exploitation, which is farmed off to private industry and the universities by the Federal Government and its agencies, with the intention expressed by the Prime Minister in his Scarborough speech to invade further the private sector of the economy. The Government will find that they have all the legitimate means at their disposal to further the practical application of scientific research, without indulging in direct manufacture for commercial purposes.
I trust that the Secretary of State will be able to accept our Amendment, because we believe that nothing further to what we propose is important or is necessary for the normal exploitation by Government of the results of their research in science and technology and that to go beyond that would be simply a dogmatic and ideological invasion of the private sector by a purely doctrinaire Government.

Mr. M. Stewart: The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), in moving this Amendment, chose to widen the discussion somewhat in order to recite some of the passages from the Conservative speaker's guide. I shall, therefore, first reply on the narrow issue of the Amendment itself, and then make some comments on the wider aspects which he has seen fit to bring into the debate. On the question of the Amendment itself, it is not difficult to demonstrate that it is, like some of the other Opposition Amendments, inept, ill-drafted and unnecessary.
In the first place, the powers given to the Minister of Technology by the Clause as it now stands are virtually identical with those which were given to the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research by the late Government in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research Act of 1956. I do not think that it was ever supposed for a moment that that Act gave the Research Council powers to manufacture commercially. Nor is it proposed to do so under this Bill. I will say something a little further about circumstances and ways in which, without any concealment, it might be right and necessary, in the interests of modernisation to have a greater degree of public enterprise, but it cannot be maintained by anyone that the Act of 1956 to which I have referred, or the wording in this Clause, could empower the Minister to do that.
It should be noticed—and this is perhaps a point which needs a sharper eye—that in paragraph (b) of Clause 5 (1), referring to the Minister of Technology, his powers are defined as:
… furthering the practical application of the results of scientific research.
I am advised that that is different from applying the results of the scientific research. He is only empowered to further the practical application. Even if it were not for the analogy with the 1956 Act, that would rule out his doing what the hon. Gentleman opposite fears.
There is one other point, that the Amendment might have a result which not even the hon. Gentleman, with his hatred of public enterprise, would have wished to produce. The Amendment as it stands could well be interpreted to mean that the Minister of Technology could not support a private industry financially if the ultimate aim of that support was to result in commercial manufacture for profit. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman intended to produce that result. I comment on these points, but I should not have laboured them so much but for the tone of the hon. Member's speech. If he chooses to lecture everybody in the Committee in a manner which suggests that they are all half-witted except himself and his hon. Friends, he ought to take the trouble to draft his Amendment a little more carefully beforehand.
I turn to his more general proposals. He says that the Conservative Party is


wholly opposed to any further nationalisation, and yet it was only an hour or two ago that the Government were being urged to spend more and more money on space projects.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Research.

Mr. Stewart: That would involve manufacture. Now we see what hon. Members opposite are saying. There would be research, and that would mean considerable preliminary expenditure. They do not object to that. There would be manufacture. But the moment anything resulted from it which would enable private profits to be made, the public would not be allowed to take part.
That may not be what hon. Members who are interested in space research meant, but when we tack it on, as we must, to what the hon. Member said, what do we find? He said, "We are wholly opposed to further nationalisation". He said that the trouble with nationalisation was that it did not respect the market. But what has been the principle of the Conservative Party whenever they have decided what to denationalise? It has been to pick out any public enterprise which was making a profit and to sell it off to their friends; and then they say at the end of the day, "How unprofitable public enterprise is". This is exactly the result which they always want to achieve—that every essential piece of expenditure, without which private industry cannot go ahead and make profits, shall be paid for by the general body of taxpayers, with the condition that the most powerful legislative steps shall be taken to see that the taxpayer never gets any return for his money. That is what the policies which the Conservative Party are advocating mean.
I go further. The hon. Member read out with great relish the things which we said during the election in our election manifesto and statements by members of our party about our belief that in the process of modernising this country one of the things which is very likely to be necessary is an extension of public enterprise. I could not understand why he regarded it as such a reproach against us that we made this view plain before the election. If I may revert to the subjects in which I was interested in the last Parliament, I always regarded it as one of the most despicable acts of the Conservative Party that they

concealed their intention to promote a general increase in rents from the electorate at the preceding election. Indeed, they denied that they had any such intention. That is not our way. When we believe that a policy is needed by the country, it is our view that we should advocate it at the preceding election.
The hon. Member need have no worries that we shall conceal anything we do on these lines in this Parliament. I refer him to the Answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) on 1st December. The Prime Minister was asked,
What proposals he has for the establishment of new industries by public enterprise or in partnership with private industry to produce new scientific discoveries.
The Prime Minister replied:
The Government will be keeping this matter under continuous and urgent study, and will inform Parliament of specific proposals as occasion arises."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1964; Vol. 702, col. 229.]
There will be no question of concealing any activity of this kind. It may well be that the Minister of Technology will find that in order to make useful technological developments it is necessary to go further than the ordinary methods prescribed under this Bill—as, for example, placing development contracts or making loans to industrial concerns.
11.0 p.m.
Do hon. Members opposite say that they know of their certain knowledge that there can never be any circumstance in which it might help modernisation for the Government to go into direct manufacture? If they do say that, how on earth do they manage to be so omniscient? It is not a proposition which can be proved in advance for a moment. But if the Minister of Technology or the Government as a whole felt it was necessary to do that, it would not be done under this Bill. Where existing legislation gives other powers to do it, it would be done under that legislation, or if new legislation were required it would be done by new legislation. The hon. Gentleman need not have worries about this Bill. We shall not proceed underhand in this matter.
But there is a larger issue behind this. We are constantly told that if we want to see the country modernised all of us


have to give up our old prejudices and fears and doctrinaire ideas. We are certainly not saying that we believe that the Minister of Technology must regard public ownership as his sole or even his main way of proceeding. What we say is that we believe that some extensions of public ownership—though not under the powers in the Bill—will probably be necessary if technological advance is to be secured.
From the words and attitude of the hon. Gentleman opposite, he is apparently saying "Never mind whether that is proved or not. We are wholly opposed to further nationalisation." Who is being doctrinaire, who is allowing old prejudices to hold back modernisation, and in whose interests is it being done? It is simply, "We will never allow any sector of the economy to be taken away from the field of private profit even if there is clear public advantage in doing so."
Yet the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples)—I am sorry to quote him in his absence, but I think he is too robust a person to resent it—when talking about modernisation generally spoke of "the fear, sometimes the irrational fear," of the working man of losing his job. I never understood—we commented on it at the time—why such a fear should be regarded as irrational. If this country is to be modernised, we have to embark on courses of action which are bound to cause anxieties to some people about their jobs, and one of the duties of the Government will be to take every precaution to look after the welfare of such men.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are never slow in exhorting the working man to throw away his restrictive practices, his old irrational fears, his fuddy-duddy notions. He is to do all that. But they are not to surrender one inch of their belief in private profit and private enterprise. That is the case that is being presented to us in the Amendment. Unless the hon. Gentleman proposes to retract the words "We are wholly opposed to further nationalisation," I ask him for no more than that he accepts that there may be instances in which an extension of public enterprise may be needed for the modernisation of the country, and that where that is so the Conservative Party will not allow its prejudices to stand in the way. If he is prepared to say that,

we might consider the Amendment on its merits. In the absence of his saying that, we must treat the Amendment as what it is, a determined attempt to stake out a claim for private profit without regard for the public welfare.

Mr. David Price: Could the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee one example? I accept what he has said, that he does not intend under the Bill to do any backdoor nationalisation. Of course I accept that from him if he tells us that. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he thought there would be cases in which, to fulfil the purposes of the Bill, it might be necessary to extend public enterprise. I wish he could give just one example of where he and the Minister of Technology see that this might be necessary.

Mr. M. Stewart: By asking that question the hon. Gentleman shows that he does not understand the point, which is that we are dealing with future developments. We shall be asking ourselves all the time about scientific ideas: to what extent can they be and ought they to be applied in industry? What I am saying is that one cannot start with the negative proposition that never in any circumstances will the right way of development be by public enterprise.
A number of important inventions have been made in public enterprise—jet aircraft, hovercraft and telecommunications, for example. All this has happened and that is why I say it is not possible to state in advance that, in future, methods of direct public manufacture would not be the right way to proceed. It is the hon. Member who has to prove his thesis that it can never be right to do this by public enterprise. I say that we should not start with a negative proposition and that we shall regret it if we do.

Mr. David Price: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman took up my point about the N.R.D.C. and the extension of its facilities proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath). I do not wish to detain the Committee by going into the way the N.R.D.C. has been working, the certain things that have limited its opportunities, all of which were stated clearly in its Report for 1961–62, and the proposals of my right hon. Friend, but we do say that, because of


the extent to which the economy has come under public control and public ownership, it is extremely important that it should not go further. This must be looked at in the totality of the economy because, if public enterprise is extended very much further, we will reach the stage where, in spite of themselves, right hon. Members opposite will find themselves having to take over the remainder.

Mr. William Yates: Not all of us are quite as hidebound on this as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) makes out. Most of us are able to view the mixed economies in Europe. There may be cases where State participation is required in private industry. But the question is: how far? This is one of the greatest debates we shall have to face.
I think that my hon. Friend wants to go too far. There will clearly be public debate in future on the participation of the State in industry and presumably this Amendment was put down to elucidate from the Secretary of State how far the Government intend to go into this field. It is an important Amendment.

Mr. M. Stewart: Other hon. Members may wish to take part in the debate but as I have been directly asked a question perhaps may now reply. The point is that we are asked to decide now how much the economy ought to be in the public sector. I was glad that the hon. Member for the Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) took a more flexible line than his hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price). But I would have said that this is exactly the question one should not try to delimit exactly in advance.
We shall have to consider, as we come to know more about what is required for the modernisation of Britain, how far it may be necessary to use the instrument of public enterprise. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that any specific proposals to that end would be laid before Parliament so that there would be no question of Parliament suddenly waking up to find things happening behind its back.
In general, I would have said that there were certain fields of public enterprise where absolutely on principle it would he right to nationalise. It was right for the coal industry if only because of the infamous treatment of the workers in that

industry when it was in private hands. There was a solid reason in fact and history for doing it. However, approaching the more delicate question as to what extent increased public enterprise may be needed in order to inject new ideas into our economy, it is quite wrong to start by saying in advance how much. The right approach is to say that we must learn on merit and that we must see that Parliament and the public are fully informed of any steps in this direction which it is proposed to take so that the public will have the facts and be in a position to judge.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The point seems to be how best we can apply the results of scientific research to industry. Of course, there may be all kinds of ways of doing it. I can see no objection, doctrinal or otherwise, to a Government Department which makes a break-through in scientific matters offering it for sale to private industry. That is a perfectly normal way of doing things.
However, if the object of the exercise is to find how best to do it, surely we are entitled to look at the record on this matter and to compare the results of the nationalised industries with those of private industry. I am sad to say that it is true that by and large the nationalised industries have not done such a good job in applying the results of scientific research as has private industry. Hon. Members will recognise that the best measure is profit and loss. What other measure can there be? The nationalised coal industry has made a loss while the non-nationalised American coal industry has continued to make a profit.
Is it not the case that, wherever we look, in terms of results the nationalised industries have not done so well? One of the reasons why they have not done so well is that they have not been subjected to the discipline of the market and if they have made a loss, the taxpayer has paid, while if a private firm has made a loss the directors have gone to the wall. That is essentially the difference between them.
I should like to refer to something said by the right hon. Gentleman when speaking of space research. If we are seeking to apply the results of modern technology across the whole of industry, there is a way of doing it which we have not yet attempted in this country. It is to try to bring together representatives of


the Government Departments engaged, private industry and the universities. These three bodies brought together can do a very satisfactory job.
This is not a theoretical idea because it is done very successfully in the Middle West Research Institute where there is brought together in one place all the knowledge and information of the American Atomic Energy Commission and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the function of the university is to feed this enormously complex technology into computers—the Prime Minister at least will understand that—and the results coming out of the computers are then on offer to private industry which wants to go to the university to take up the research relevant to its own production. The centre charges for it and is right to charge for it. Many hundreds of American firms pay a subscription of, I think, 5,000 dollars a year in order to go to that research centre and get from the uni-vesity's computers the material fed into them by Government Departments.
This is one of the many and various ways in which one could apply the results of scientific investigation right across industry. No one wants to be hidebound by any particular theory. What we are after is the achieving of the best results for the country, and on their record the nationalised industries have not achieved it and by and large private industries have. This can be seen whether comparison is made here at home or internationally.
11.15 p.m.
For that reason, we view with the gravest suspicion the suggestion by the Government that, somehow or other, all the fruits—

Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon. Member is referring to the conduct of the nationalised industries during the last 13 years. Is he not aware that a Conservative Government were in power during those 13 years? In considering the Bill, what we have to bear in mind is that if we are to spend public money, surely there is nothing wrong in the benefit of the money which is spent going back to the public.

Mr. Griffiths: Indeed, the whole object of the exercise is to benefit the public.

My view is that in so far as the Conservative Government began to apply the principles of private enterprise to the nationalised industries by way of the appointment of Dr. Beeching and by encouraging Lord Robens to apply market conditions to the coal industry, it was at that point, and that point only, that the nationalised industries began to do a little better than they did under hon. Members opposite.
We view with the gravest suspicion the notion of putting this proposal into a Bill of this kind, which deals not with the economic structure of the country but with one limited sector. It seems as though the Government are trying to slip in a technique by which they will be able to achieve nationalisation by what is called the back door. For that reason, we oppose it.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: As I see it, the wording of the Clause is taken from the 1956 Act, a Conservative Measure. Our Amendment is designed to clarify that wording for the reasons put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths).
It has been stated by the Prime Minister—and the Secretary of State has quoted this—that any further endeavour to nationalise any activity would be put before the House of Commons. Therefore, I cannot see why the Secretary of State is not willing to accept the Amendment, because it would back up the intentions which he has expressed. If he accepted the Amendment, we could well and truly understand the assurances that he has given us.
Having said that, I have to admit that I have been in the United States of America and have had to discuss the rôle of our nationalised industries, and not always unfavourably. Nationalisation is something that a logical person cannot condemn outright without quoting some of the advantages.

Mr. Norman Dodds: The hon. Member should tell his hon. Friend.

Mr. Osborn: I have had to be fair to audiences outside this country, as well as in this country, to collate the advantages and disadvantages. If, however, the Clause is to operate and our Amendment is not accepted, there will be a door


wide open for the Minister of Technology to exploit new endeavours under the cloak of nationalised sponsors, perhaps against private industry and putting it at an unfair disadvantage.
It is not always certain that exploiting a breakthrough will necessarily achieve success. The brakes and the criteria which must operate to ensure that investment in research and development is wise are difficult to define at the best of times. Not long before Christmas, and at about this same hour of the night, on the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order we were discussing the effectiveness of the Bronowski briquette, the amount of money that the National Coal Board had spent on it and the lack of success which it had achieved. One must not condemn this development because it has been developed by a nationalised industry, but it pinpoints the ease with which vast sums can be spent unless the right criteria are applied to the spending of that money.
It occurs to me that unless the Amendment is accepted, there will be a tremendous loophole for a vast drain of public money into endeavours and development which is not properly supervised. For these reasons, I ask the Secretary of State to reconsider his reply.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am sorry that the Committee sees fit to make what may be described as somewhat unfriendly noises before I have even begun what I intend to be a series of very brief and, I hope, non-controversial remarks about this Amendment. So I hope hon. Members opposite will allow me to say what I have to say, and I hope that no exception will be taken to my remarks. When I entered the Chamber there seemed to be a good deal of to-ing and fro-ing as to who should nationalise what, and perhaps I may give my version of what I see to be the case which my party presents. It is that we see before us—and I think that the Committee must agree with this—a great deal of public enterprise, a vast amount of nationalised industry, of nationalised undertakings of one kind and another.—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Michael Foot: I was wondering whether it was public enterprise which got that whistle going.

Mr. Cooke: It had a tendency to divert attention from my remarks. Perhaps I could say that public enterprise on this occasion apparently was unhampered, or only partly hampered, by the Socialist Government, for it seemed to be able to carry on quite a time.
I would remind the Committee that the vastly greater part of Bristol's prosperity depends on private enterprise still, and the point I wish to make, and it is a serious one, is that with such a lot of public enterprise as there is it would presumably be the wish of the Government and of this Committee that this public enterprise should be 100 per cent. efficiently run before we embark on any further nationalisation. One would wish to be extremely cautious and that before any further public enterprise is embarked upon the House should discuss it fully and frankly. It appears to me that this Clause as it stands, if it is not amended as proposed, provides a loophole for further embarkation on public enterprise without proper discussion in the House.
Related to this I would wish to give the Committee another point. I hope I am not out of order by anticipating a Question which I hope to ask the Minister of Technology when he enters the House—-[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—later, if he does—[HON. MEMBERS: "He will."] It is typical of the approach of hon. Members opposite to roar with laughter at the prospect of the Minister of Technology coming to the House. Of course, I hope that the Opposition win the by-election, but I would also hope, as I am sure all my hon. Friends do, that the opportunity will arise when we can get at this Minister of the Crown.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is getting very far from the Amendment.

Mr. Cooke: I do apologise if I have strayed—indeed, I imagine that I have strayed—out of order. I am sorry if I have done so because of provocation by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I will try to come back to the point, and it is the last point I wish to make now, and it is on the question of restrictive practices.
I hope that the Secretary of State will do his best to bridge the gap between the Minister of Technology and the Minister of Labour in seeing that the fruits of


technology, which is what the Bill is all about, shall not be prevented from being applied in industry because of restrictive practices of one kind or another.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. There is nothing about restrictive practices in this Amendment.

Mr. Cooke: I apologise for straying rather far from the point, but I am sure that everyone will agree that nothing that I have said is remotely controversial.

Mr. W. Yates: I put a question to the Minister, which he very kindly answered, but that was not to be interpreted as the speech that I wish to make, and I realise that there is plenty of time in which I can expand what I was going to say to him.
The view taken by my hon. Friends and myself about nationalisation, and the stopping of it, depends on what form the nationalisation takes, either in this Clause, or which was envisaged in the Minister's reply. I wish to know what sort of nationalisation is meant, because it has been interpreted in many different ways. A noble Lord in another place referred to it as rationalisation and public ownership, and various words are now being used to take away the real classical meaning of nationalisation as propounded by the constitution of Clause Four as laid down by the Labour Party. The country must be told what is meant in this Clause and in this Bill.
I understand that nationalisation means the complete taking over, lock stock and barrel, of an industry. If, under this Clause, or by this Bill, it will be possible for the Minister of Technology to start a new industry, or to take over a private one, we want to know more about it. That is the sort of thing which everybody in the country wants to know. What does the Labour Party mean by nationalisation?

Hon. Members: The Minister has told you.

Mr. Yates: No, he has not. He has been very evasive.
One Minister says that it means public ownership. A noble Lord in another place says that it means the rationalisation of industry, and finally we are told that it means the modernisation of Britain. We want to know what the Government mean when they talk about

nationalisation. This issue was made clear where I fought an election because, thank goodness, the person who opposed me was Mr. Bevan's Parliamentary Private Secretary. He made it clear to everybody in the constituency what nationalisation meant, and he lost the election.
My hon. Friend must not go away with the idea that hon. Members on this side of the Committee are not conscious of the work of many people in Europe who saw the future of participation between private industry and the State. In particular, I mention Mr. Mattei in Italy, and others. I do not want hon. Gentlemen opposite to think that because we are opposed to nationalisation we are not considering various ways in which the State can participate in private industry. What we are opposed to is the classical Labour Party Clause Four, which is the root and base of their philosophy, which means the complete control of all means of production, distribution, and exchange. That is what we wish to be clear about. I am not quite sure whether the Government are trying to tell the people that nationalisation as it was thought of 20 years ago—when it was written about by you-know-who—is different from what it is today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who wrote about it?"] It was written by a man called Sidney Webb.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must relate what he is saying to the Amendment.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the sort of nationalisation envisaged by such pillars of Socialism as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) differs very much from the nationalisation propounded by such pillars of Conservatism as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Yates: It is clear that in this Amendment we are trying to get from the Government exactly where they intend to draw the line in regard to the sort of nationalisation they might be able to achieve within the terms of the Bill. We are trying to discover whether it is different from the nationalisation propounded by the old fuddy-duddies of the classical Labour Party twenty years ago. The country is entitled to know about


this. People should know what the party opposite means by nationalisation.
All I say is that where the Conservative Party thinks it necessary for the State to participate in industry it wishes to reserve its position, because it is not prepared to allow nationalisation to go as far as hon. Members opposite would like it to go. They would like to see public ownership extended to all means of production, distribution and exchange. The Amendment has served a valuable purpose. It has shown that even today the Government do not really know, and cannot say, what is meant by nationalisation.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 5, line 8, at the end to insert:
 (2) The Minister of Technology, in and for the discharge of his functions falling within subsection (1) (a) and (b) above, may exercise the powers conferred by section 1 of the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 on competent authorities within the meaning of that Act, and for that purpose the Act shall apply as if he were named as a competent authority in section 17 (3) of the Act.
This is a milder Amendment. It makes the very reasonable proposition that for the discharge of his functions within subsections (1,a) and (1,b), and for the discharge those functions alone, the Minister of Technology may become one of the competent authorities mentioned in the Statistics of Trade Act 1947. That gives him power to require certain information which will be necessary if he is to do the job mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).
At present there are 15 such competent authorities and, in addition, any Secretary of State is a competent authority. This is an obvious and commonsense Amendment, which I hope will commend itself to the Committee.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: It is only right that I should intervene in this matter. I have been associated on many occasions with providing statistics for these competent authorities. I hope that with the creation of one more competent authority the demand for these statistics will be exercised with discretion. We have referred to a large number of smaller firms who already find it incredibly difficult to provide the information required of them, and one more competent authority will mean that

one more burden is placed on these smaller and medium-sized firms. I ask the Secretary of State to bear in mind that this demand for statistics should be exercised with a fair degree of discretion.

Mr. David Price: I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree with the general proposition put forward by the Secretary of State in the Amendment. I hope that the Minister of Technology, in the discharge of his duties, will find it possible, as far as possible—and I appreciate that it may not always be possible—to get the figures he wants voluntarily. I hope that in the compilation of figures it will not prove necessary, except in rare instances, to use the panoply of legal powers which exist under the Act and which, we appreciate, need to be used where it is the Government view that a 100 per cent. census must be made.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman takes my point and appreciates that in obtaining statistical sampling figures one can get a high degree of accuracy on a relatively small sample. Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the sort of information which the Minister of Technology would be minded, in the first instance, to collect? For example, will he want to collect information on the number or possibly the value of electronically controlled machine tools, as distinct from the more normal types of machinery?

Mr. M. Stewart: I take the hon. Gentleman's point and I accept as valid the points made by both hon. Members opposite. I cannot go into much detail on the kind of information the Minister will require. The kind of things he is empowered to ask for hon. Members will find in the Schedule to the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) provided an example of one of these; the kind of information it would be in the public interest to have. I am glad that hon. Members opposite raised these points. Perhaps I should have mentioned that it has been the experience that a great deal of this information has been provided voluntarily. The only reason why it is desirable to have statutory powers is that I do not think that it is fair to the co-operative firms


which provide information voluntarily if the value of their work is spoilt because it cannot be made complete. I hope that this will work from the point of view of the Minister of Technology as it has worked so far with the other competent authorities.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS ON REDISTRIBUTION OF ACTIVITIES OF EXISTING ORGANISATIONS.)

Mr. Boyden: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 10, line 27, at the end to insert:
 (b) so far as appears to him necessary or expedient for giving full effect to a transfer of activities in accordance with section 3 (1) to (3) of this Act, provide, in the case of a local Act or Act confirming a provisional order. (after such consultation with any authority or body having functions under the Act as appears to him to be appropriate) for the repeal or amendment of any provision in that Act which affects the predecessor and make transitional, supplemental or incidental provision in connection with any such repeal or amendment; and
The Amendment gives power to amend local enactments consequentially on the transfer of activities effected by the Bill. For example, it will be necessary to amend one or two local enactments concerning nature conservancy. There are good precedents for dealing with this in this way, for example, several Acts referring to Milford Haven Conservancy.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Neave: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 11, line 15, after (1), to insert (a).

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that it will be convenient for the Committee to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 23.

Mr. Neave: That will be convenient. It will be noted that Amendment No. 23 reads:
… shall apply to officers and other persons recruited by the Science Research Council subsequent to the coming into effect

of the provisions of section 3 (2) of this Act, in so far as they are employed on activities taken over under that subsection from the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science.
Under Clause 3 the activities of the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science are taken over by the Science Research Council. My Amendment, I think the Joint Under-Secretary will agree, is of great importance to the recruiting of scientists for the future tasks of that organisation. Its purpose is to ensure that they will continue to enjoy the same pension schemes as under the Atomic Energy Authority.
The objects and functions of the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science is to provide universities and others with nuclear physics facilities on a national basis. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it has attained a great name in international circles with the work which it has done for nuclear physics. The Rutherford High Energy Laboratory, which is its principal establishment, is in my constituency, and with the staff of the Atlas computer laboratory there are altogether 1,200 scientists, engineers and technicians employed there.
Without my Amendment those now employed there would retain the same pension rights under the Atomic Energy Authority pension scheme as they now enjoy, but unfortunately paragraph 4 is so worded with reference to the date of transfer to the Science Research Council that future entrants—scientists, technicians and engineers—will not enjoy these pension rights, but will be under Civil Service conditions for pay and pension.
I seek to amend the Schedule on the grounds that there are good scientific reasons for the recruitment of the type of scientists and workers we require at the Rutherford High Energy Laboratory that new entrants should enjoy the same pension rights as the staff enjoy now. It must be remembered that the Rutherford Laboratory is next door to the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell and originally a staff of about 300 was seconded from the Authority. These are two adjoining organisations with similar jobs.
In view of the nature of the research they do and the work they do for the country in nuclear physics, I feel that


they should continue to enjoy the same facilities. It was agreed in 1958 that the A.E.A. conditions of service should apply and N.I.R.N.S. has actually adopted the A.E.A. conditions except that it has a separate Whitley Council.
On the question of pay and pensions in the Civil Service, which new entrants would join, the position is that salaries at present are 7 per cent. above the Civil Service scale and there is no analogy with established or non-established civil servants. The staff contribute 6 per cent. of salaries to superannuation funds. Benefits are nearly identical with those in the Civil Service except that they are based on actual salary before deductions for on contributions and are, therefore, 7 per cent. higher than the Civil Service equivalent—that is, the pension is based on 107 per cent. of salary. All these considerations are extremely important in recruiting personnel for N.I.R.N.S. I think that the Under-Secretary is well aware of this and is receptive to my argument.
11.45 p.m.
There is quite strong feeling about this among the staff side at N.I.R.N.S. and those responsible for its future establishment. Its work is growing. I have said that the staff has increased from 300 in 1958 to 1,200 today, and it may be a good deal larger in the next few years.
There are advantages to N.I.R.N.S. at present in that, under the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's pension scheme, one can withdraw from the scheme below the age of 50 on much better arrangements than one can under the Civil Service schemes which new entrants would join if the Amendment were not accepted. There are other provisions under the U.K.A.E.A. schemes such as assisted house purchase and loans for this purpose to employees.
To sum up the argument for the Amendment, if paragraph (4) remains un-amended, future entrants will be on Civil Service conditions for pay and pension. They will, of course, be the servants of the Research Council, but they will continue to work immediately alongside the A.E.A. at Harwell, and there may be very serious staffing difficulties. I ask the Under-Secretary to consider seriously what I am saying. On superannuation,

there is no analogy with established and non-established staff, as I have explained. At present, they have common estates, common stores, common library facilities through N.I.R.N.S. and the A.E.R.E., at Harwell, and, moreover, the staffing of the N.I.R.N.S. is closely related to the universities. I am sure that there will be great difficulty in recruiting.
A good example of what might happen is that the Medical Research Council unit, at Harwell, is on Civil Service scales, unlike the Atomic Energy Authority, and it is having tremendous difficulty in recruiting all kinds of staff, scientific, secretarial and administrative. Secondly, scientists of the same grade in M.R.N.S., which serves the universities, should have the same rights of transfer as in other non-Government organisations. They should be free to move into industry and they should not be restricted by the Civil Service rules. There is no doubt that their scope would be narrowed under this transfer if all those newly recruited became civil servants.
It is the Government's job to provide the best possible facilities for scientists, and this is being done in terms of equipment at the Rutherford Laboratory, but pay and conditions are very important, too. There are very sound scientific reasons why the Under-Secretary should look again at this whole matter and, I hope, accept the Amendment. It is of great importance for the future of the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science.

Mr. Boyden: I was glad that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) paid the tribute he did to the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science. The Government agree with him in that very much indeed.
As to the case which he argued so well on the pay and conditions which he advocates for many of his constituents, the difficulty is that, if the Government endorse for new entrants the particular conditions appertaining at the moment to the N.I.R.N.S., they will, in fact, be perpetuating an anomaly. While we have given a categorical assurance that the existing staff will be in no way worse off, the Government are not in a position to undertake this preferential treatment for new staff recruited to the N.I.R.N.S.
The A.E.A. scheme and the N.I.R.N.S. scheme is a contributory scheme under


which the employee's contribution of 6 per cent. of salary, which is conditioned to Civil Service salary, is offset by a comparable 7 per cent. increase in salary to make up for the pension contribution. The result is that N.I.R.N.S. and A.E.A. staff have superannuation paid on 107 per cent. of salary instead of 100 per cent.
It is this anomaly which the Government feel they cannot agree to for new entrants. The conditions of service—merit awards, leave, transferability and everything else of that description—will be comparable and this anomaly for new entrants would not be justified.
The Amendment would go too wide. It would create a specially privileged group of technicians, executives and clerical staff. The Government are anxious to have transferability all the way through between the research councils and Government Departments and that would be hindered for new entrants by the Amendment. We must resist it.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

Mr. Graham Page: I wish to register a protest that we should now be about to consider the Bill on Report when it has been amended in Committee. On the Order Paper it was stated that the Bill would be dealt with in Committee. There is no mention of further stages. It has been amended by the Government in six respects in Committee. The House, as a House, will not have time, if we proceed to Report stage now, to consider those Amendments and perhaps to put down further Amendments.
This is really treating the House with lack of consideration after the Government have amended the Bill in Committee. They produced the Bill to the Committee in an incomplete state and had to amend it. One Amendment included a very important Section of a previous Act. This sort of thing should be considered carefully before we proceed further. If we do go on now we will not have the opportunity of tabling further Amendments consequent upon those made in Committee. It is surely

normal to allow the House time to do that when a Bill has been amended in Committee.

Mr. Boyden: There has been considerable time in which to put down Amendments and I would have thought that there has been plenty of opportunity to do so. The Government Amendments have not aroused controversy. Indeed, one of them went some way to meet objections raised on Second Reading. There are a great many precedents for pursuing this course and I hope that we can now proceed.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. William Yates: This is an extraordinary speed with which we have to rush through the Bill. If this is modernising the House, then it is a new technique of which the Opposition must take account. All we can do, of course, if it is the wish of the Government, is to proceed tonight. I realise that the purpose of the Bill is to provide Mr. Cousins with a job, and that the money will be found for him to do that job. All I can do is congratulate the Government on having prepared the Bill at such speed to satisfy one of their first placemen.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — MINISTERIAL SALARIES AND MEMBERS' PENSIONS (ANNUITY PREMIUMS)

Resolved,
That with effect from 16th October, 1964, provision should be made for reducing the amount of relief from income tax under Part III of the Finance Act 1956 (retirement and other annuities) in respect of qualifying premiums paid by a Member of the House of Commons who holds office as Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NEW INDUSTRIES, CARLISLE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ifor Davies.]

11.57 p.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis: After the excitement of the last hour, I make no apology for raising a purely constituency matter on the question of new industries for the City of Carlisle.
Carlisle is a town with a population of about 70,000. It is the capital town of Cumberland and the only county borough in the two counties of Cumberland and Westmorland. It serves as a regional centre for a considerable area, and it is estimated that about 70,000 people come into the city for shopping, business, commerce, professional services, etc., and are catered for by the city's technical college, art college, library, public baths and expanding airport, in which both private enterprise and municipal enterprise is interested. There is also a crematorium.
The development of Carlisle offers an opportunity to reduce the congestion and overcrowding of other areas in the South-East and in the Midlands. We have a large trading estate of 175·5 acres. We have land available both for building council houses and for development by private enterprise. No special difficulties exist to prevent the extension of public services. Carlisle is the centre of a radiatory railway system, and within a few years the trunk roads running north and south will be raised to motorway standards. For newcomers to Carlisle it can be said that the city is within easy reach of some of the most beautiful country in the north of England, and, of course, it is the gateway to Scotland. We provide good education services.
While we never suffered in the depression years of the 1930s, that is not to say that people have pockets bulging with cash. Far from it. In addition to being a railway centre, we have textiles, engineering works and a biscuit manufacturer, and we are also an important administrative centre. Carlisle also depends to some extent upon Government establishments, which include a Royal Air Force maintenance unit and the Spadeadam rocket site, which accounts

for the employment of several thousand men. If a change were made in defence policy which meant the abandonment of any or all of these, a very serious unemployment problem would immediately arise in the City of Carlisle and also in the County of Cumberland. If new growing industries could be established now, the problem, if it arose, would be less difficult to meet.
The city is well placed in the matter of all essential services which new and expanded industries will need, such as water, sewerage, gas and electricity. Therefore, it is far better to encourage industries to establish themselves in Carlisle where all these services exist than to spend public money in providing them in under-developed areas.
The figures for employed persons in Carlisle, including some of the rural areas around, are not encouraging. Figures from the Ministry of Labour based on insurance cards show that employment increased from 1958 to 1961 but that thereafter it decreased in 1962 and 1963. The figures for 1964 are, so far as I know, not yet available. In November, 1964, the unemployment rate was 2·4 per cent. compared with the national average at the same date of 1·5, giving a total of unemployed of 951 males and females.
There is certainly a migration away from Carlisle. There are no precise figures to show what it is. Given the average rate of increase in the population, which in a city the size of Carlisle would be about 180 men between the ages of 18 and 64 per annum, it is clear that, with a shrinking or static employment figure and with no noticeable rise in unemployment, there must be a drift of population to other areas.
The industrial development committee of the city carried out a survey of future requirements for land and workers from established employers last autumn. A questionnaire was issued to all businesses employing more than 10 people. Replies were received from employers covering some 41 per cent. of the insured population. On balance, the replies showed that the expectation of employers is for an increase in employment of about 200 per year over the next five years. This certainly reveals a healthy confidence in the future among the existing employers in the city.
To sum up, Carlisle possesses all the necessary physical assets for development—land and sites for prices less than in the congested parts of the country. Its services are up-to-date and can be readily extended. Carlisle provides amenities in its countryside and in the city itself, while Carlisle's unemployment rate, although too low to rank for any Government assistance, offers advantages for further industrial development, which, in the long run, may outweigh immediate financial inducements. The city is capable of absorbing a substantial increase in population, and could contribute to the country's prosperity, if people and industry could be attracted to this area instead of congesting the south-east region.
This is a matter which can only be dealt with satisfactorily by Government action. This part of the country of England has been too long forgotten by Governments in the past, and I hope that the present Government will treat us as a partner and that they will give the whole question of new industries coming to Carlisle some immediate consideration.

12.6 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) wants to know what the Board of Trade can do to help Carlisle obtain a greater diversity of industry. I would agree with him that there is a real problem here, but I hope that he will not misunderstand me when I say that it is not peculiar to Carlisle. There are many county administrative towns in England—and, I suppose, in Scotland and Wales, too—where the town, the centre of a fairly wide administrative area, is situated in a thinly populated rural area. Beautiful as it may be, it is thinly populated.
The result, as at Carlisle, is that a big proportion of the citizens are employed, not in industry or commerce, but in the local administrative services of one kind or another. In fact, the latest figures which I have, for a year ago, show that out of 41,000 employed persons in and around Carlisle, about 28,000 were in administrative or industrial service jobs, and only about 11,500 in manufacturing industry—about two-thirds in administration of one kind or another, and only one quarter in industry. I do not suppose that the position has changed much in the past year.
There is, therefore, an unduly small proportion of industrial workers in the population. My hon. Friend has mentioned some of the industries there, but there are only about six major firms of any size—counting British Railways as a firm in this regard—in this city of 71,000 people. That is an unusually small collection of industrial undertakings for a town of this size. I would agree, therefore, with my hon. Friend that to get a better balance of employment in industry and commerce and public administration, Carlisle should have many more industries.
The employment situation at present is that it relies far too heavily on public administration services. It is very difficult for the Board of Trade to help to bring new industries to the town. The criterion on which we have to work in inducing firms to move into new districts is the degree of local unemployment, or the known prospect of future unemployment, where we know that industries will be run down. On this score, Carlisle is relatively fortunate. I suppose that one would expect that in a town which relies so heavily on fairly stable employment in the administrative services.
Of course, the fact that there is so much employment, relatively, in the administrative services which are situated in Carlisle means that the industrial workers who are thrown out of work have fewer opportunities of finding jobs, because there is so little industry there.
We are aware of the facts about Carlisle, but, in present circumstances at any rate, the Board of Trade must continue to give priority to the areas of heavy unemployment in its policy of industrial dispersal. The level of unemployment in Carlisle is too low, fortunately, for the town to be scheduled as a development district. Although it does not qualify for the aid which the Board of Trade offers to firms moving into the development districts, we appreciate the problem of getting more diversity of industry there. We treat an area of this type very sympathetically in any application which may come along for development which stimulates or comes out of stimulation of local industrial development; and we would certainly be very sympathetic to demands for industrial development certificates.
The point is that we ourselves cannot induce firms to move to Carlisle, but we


would be very glad to give approval to the local expansion of industry. Any firm which wanted of its own volition to move to Carlisle would also be treated very sympathetically for an industrial development certificate, unless it very clearly ought to move into one of the development districts.
Having said that, I agree with my hon. Friend that the present employment situation is by no means satisfactory. He gave us the figure—in December there were 1,000 men and women without jobs. Although this is a low percentage of the total employment force in Carlisle—2½ per cent., relatively low as compared with the higher level of unemployment in the development districts—we are dealing with men and women and not with statistics, and 1,000 men and women out of work, here or anywhere else, are 1,000 too many.
Apart from the indignity of being without a job and the personal difficulties which fall upon those who are unemployed, the country is losing the value of their labour, and if we can help in any way to find employment for them, we shall certainly do so. But—I was about to say, "Until Carlisle gets such a high level of unemployment that it can be scheduled as a development district", but my hon. Friend appreciates that I do not mean in any sense that I want that to happen—we cannot alter at this stage the criterion on which we have to work, which is that of heavy unemployment.
As to the future, my hon. Friend may know that Carlisle has rejoined the Cumberland Development Council, which will mean that the town will be brought into the wider discussions which will be going on for developments in the whole of the Cumberland area, and out of that it will be possible for some industries by local action to be steered to Carlisle. My hon. Friend was quite right to mention that the continuation of the M.6 motorway will help in this matter. It will make Carlisle

a much better centre from the transport point of view and I should think that the extension of the motorway will help to stimulate local industry and improve the town's attractions as a location for new industry. I think that my hon. Friend will also be interested to know that the regional controllers of the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour are meeting the town clerk next week to discuss the prospects for industrial development.
We are alive to the problem which my hon. Friend has raised, but I must repeat that we have to give priority to the areas of heavy unemployment in the Board of Trade's part in steering industry to new areas. Nevertheless, I am sure that it will be the business of the new regional economic planning machinery which is being set up to suggest ways and means of improving the economy of the region as a whole.
We hope that from this there will emerge practical proposals which will benefit Carlisle. We also hope that proposals may emerge from the discussions which will start next week—I hope that wider discussions may follow—and from the studies of the regional development needed which, we hope, will soon be undertaken.
I assure my hon. Friend that we are alive to the problems of a town like Carlisle, which is so heavily dependent upon administrative services because it is the administrative centre of a fairly wide area, and where, for the purpose of getting a balanced economy in the town and in the surrounding district, there should be a greater diversity of industry. As the industrial development of the country continues with the greater economic progress that we expect and will certainly get under this Government, I am sure that the needs of Carlisle will be taken into consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.